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. A merger of these two postulated correctives to the “democratic deficit” – electoral reform and deliberative democracy – was launched in the Province of British Columbia in January 2004 with the advent of the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".