Understanding How Context Shapes Citizen-User Involvement in Policy Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As governments grapple with meeting expectations of citizens and including their voices in policy making, greater understanding of how context influences involvement can help identify ways to involve those citizens who face substantial barriers to inclusion in policy development. This qualitative, instrumental case study focused on the involvement of people who use and need mental health and housing services in policy development in Manitoba. Data were collected from 21 key informants purposively selected from four policy actor groups as well as from relevant documents. Data were analyzed using inductive qualitative methods. Results identified five themes related to contextual influences on involvement: (a) the social environment, (b) institutional characteristics, (c) participant characteristics, (d) opportunities for involvement and (e) ideas and formal policy structures. The findings suggest that policy makers should look to contextual factors to identify ways to reduce the barriers to the inclusion of people with mental health and housing needs in health policy making.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".