Communicative rationality in the Citizens' Assembly and referendum processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spread of representative democracies over the last twenty years has stimulated new interest in electoral systems, attracting scholarly attention to their determining impact on the functioning of political institutions. As well, a growing concern about public apathy toward political life and deepening distrust toward "politics" generally has signaled the need for a revitalization of the democratic polity. In that regard, attempts to resurrect the notion of the "public sphere" have produced a range of electoral reform initiatives and procedural innovations in recent years, reinforcing "the supposition that deliberation enhances democracy" (Sanders 1997: 347). This extended project of "participatory democratic regeneration" (Fung and Wright 2003: 40) has now yielded numerous rationales for "deliberative democracy" – essentially a mode of discursive public activity that encourages participants to "give reasons" in order to "justify decisions" (Gutmann and Thompson 2004: 7). Free and open dialogue is viewed as the tonic for an alienated citizenry.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".