The Limits of Deliberative Democracy and Empowerment: Elite Motivation in Three Canadian Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.In recent years, elites in the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSP) and Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) held consultations based on principles of deliberative democracy with members of their affected publics. I explore five factors that may help us understand why some elites are inclined to empower members of their affected publics. These factors can be understood as characteristics of each policy context and include normative principle, public pressure, policy requirement, strategic management interest, and economic interest. Based on a comparative case study of a series of semi-structured interviews with a range of actors, written public submissions, and official reports, I identify these as pertinent factors and argue that the convergence of the economic interests of the organization and the deliberative empowerment of its affected public is critical. This examination serves constructively in helping us better understand a persistent gap between the theoretical aims and practical instantiations of deliberative democracy. Résumé.Au cours des dernières années, les élites dirigeantes de la Société canadienne de gestion des déchets nucléaires, de la Nova Scotia Power Inc. et de la Société de logement communautaire de Toronto ont tenu des séances de consultation fondées sur les principes de la démocratie délibérative avec les membres concernés par leurs politiques. J'examine cinq facteurs qui peuvent nous aider à mieux comprendre pourquoi certains décideurs sont enclins à reconnaître un droit de regard aux membres touchés par leurs politiques. Ces facteurs peuvent être analysés en tant que caractéristiques des contextes particuliers de chaque politique concernée et incluent les dimensions liées aux principes normatifs, aux pressions publiques, au contenu des politiques, à la gestion stratégique des intérêts et aux enjeux économiques. À l'aide d'une étude comparative de cas comprenant des entretiens semi-dirigés avec divers acteurs, des soumissions publiques écrites et des rapports officiels, je présente ces dimensions à titre de facteurs pertinents et soutiens que la convergence des intérêts économiques des organisations et le pouvoir de délibération accordé au public concerné revêtent une importance cruciale. Cet examen se révèle constructif et nous aide à mieux comprendre le fossé persistant entre les finalités théoriques et la mise en pratique de la démocratie délibérative.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".