Participation and Deliberation on the Internet: A Case Study of Digital Participatory Budgeting in Belo Horizonte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esse artigo busca avaliar trocas discursivas realizadas no fórum online do orçamento participativo digital (OPD) de Belo Horizonte, Brasil. Para tanto, é formulado um modelo de análise das discussões entre os cidadãos participantes do programa baseado nas teorias de democracia deliberativa. São analisadas as mensagens dos usuários (n=375) postadas na ferramenta de comentários do site do OPD. Os resultados apontam que os aspectos discursivos concernentes à reciprocidade e à reflexividade se mostraram relativamente escassos; entretanto, o respeito pelos outros interlocutores, bem como a construção da justificativa dos pontos de vista expressos no fórum, alcançaram índices elevados, mesmo não havendo empowerment da ferramenta ou incentivo por parte da Prefeitura. Conclui-se que a internet pode, efetivamente, oferecer ambientes voltados para o estabelecimento de trocas discursivas qualificadas e que, mesmo nos casos onde há baixos índices de deliberatividade, há progressos importantes do ponto de vista do aprendizado a que são expostos os usuários.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".