Calling all citizens: The challenges of public consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: One way governments have responded to the heightened democratic discontent of recent years is to seek greater input from citizens in the policy‐making process in large‐scale public consultations. This article provides a case study of one such consultation. In the fall of 2002, the City of Saint John, faced with a sizeable budget deficit, sought public input on important fiscal decisions that had to be made before year's end. Citizens could provide their views in a traditional way ‐ by mailing in a questionnaire to city hall ‐ or they could submit their views electronically via the City of Saint John web site. Drawing on a wide variety of data sources, including interviews with city officials and a follow‐up survey of consultation participants, the authors assess the success of this particular exercise in achieving several interrelated objectives: facilitating citizen participation in public affairs, enhancing citizens' sense of their political efficacy, providing public officials with insight into public opinion, and shaping public policy. Taking into account both consultation outcomes and the expectations of citizens and officials, the authors identity key shortfalls of the Saint John consultation, as well as avenues for constructive change in future exercises. Sommaire: L'une des maniéres dont les gouvernements ont réagi au méontentement démocratique exacerbé. qui s'est manifesté ces derniéres années a été d'accroitre la participation des citoyens au processus d'éaboration de politiques en organisant des consultations publiques à grande échelle. Le présent article ést une étude de cas portant sur une de ces consultations. À L'automne de 2002, la ville de Saint‐John, faisant face à un gros déficit budgétairc, a cherchéà obtenir L'avis du public sur d'impor‐tantes décisions financiéres qui devaient être prises avant la fin de L'annee. Les cito‐yens avaient la possibilité de faire connaître leur opinion d'une façon traditionnelle en renvoyant un questionnaire par la poste à L'Hôtel de Ville, ou bien ils pouvaient soumettre leurs commentaires par voie électronique par L'intermédiaire du site Web de la Ville de Saint‐John. À partir d'une grande variété de sources de données, y compris des entrcvues avec des responsables municipaux et un sondage de suivi auprés dcs participants a la consultation, f'étude de cas évalue le succés de cet exer‐cice particulier à atteindre plusieurs objectifs interdépendants:faciliter la participation des citoyens aux affaires publiques, améliorer le sentiment d'efficacité politiquc chez les citoyens, permettre aux fonctionnaires de se faire une meilleure idée de L'opinion publiquc et façonner la politique publique. En tenant compte à la fois des résultats des consultations et des attentes des citoyens et des fonctionnaircs, nous identifions les principales lacunes de la consultation de Saint‐John ainsi que les moyens d'apporter des changements constructifs aux exercices futurs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".