Ethnicity, Civil Society, and Public Policy: Minority Inclusion in Democratic Governance strategies/Ethnicite, Societe Civile et Politique Publique Generale : L'inclusion De Minorites Dans Les Strategies De Gouvernance Democratique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The transition to democracy is a slow and fragile process. The development of practical and sound public policies that are applicable, acceptable, and inclusive are vital for the establishment of democratic systems. We believe that such policies should be led by citizens and supported by governments. To achieve this goal, initiatives must also overcome entrenched nativist attitudes if they are to be truly anchored in the community. The issue is how to formulate and deliver policies that will underpin the installation of the democratic ideal and which address the contexts unique to the countries undertaking this process. Earlier in 2007, the Democracy Council hosted a Dialogue on Canada's Approach to Democratic Development to discuss issues and challenges involved in the promotion of democratic development. of the key findings of this dialogue was the importance of participation and inclusion of all citizens, particularly marginalized populations, in designing and implementing democratic processes. The intention of the plenary session was to build on this dialogue and discuss the lessons learned to date, the role of external actors in facilitating democratic reform, and the role that Canada might take. This report provides an overview of the plenary session on minority inclusion and democratic governance, sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), which was held at the biennial conference of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association on September 28, 2007. The plenary session was intended to share ideas and experiences about how to ensure effective minority participation in democratic governance systems. While it was assumed that a one size fits all approach is neither desirable nor realistic, the focus was on finding alternative ways to minority inclusion. Presentations by panelists and discussions in the session revolved mainly around seven questions: 1. Who should take the lead in initiating, maintaining, and controlling minority inclusion in the democratic process? 2. What role do women and minority groups play in citizen-focused projects in democracy building? 3. What does accountability mean in different cultures and how can it be achieved? 4. Why should international democracy advisers, including governments, pay close attention to national and cultural traditions? 5. How can we ensure that all citizens, not only some organizations (e.g., minority advocacy groups), participate in the democratic process? 6. How do we find out what citizens need in specific countries in transition? Why is this important? 7. What kinds of local democracy initiatives are there and how can they be encouraged? The panelists answered these questions based on their own observations of, and experience in, democracy building. Jack Jedwab reported on the Canadian experience. Many of his observations were a function of his previous position as Executive Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress for the Quebec region. James Frideres focused on the driving forces behind the global expansion of democracy, the sustainability of democracies, and the role of social specialists and global institutions in the promotion of democracy. He relied on statistics and survey data to defend some of his ideas. John Packer discussed similar issues. A summary of their presentations appears below. Jack Jedwab No One Size Fits All--The Illusive Quest for Models to Reconcile Identity Needs, Participation, and Representation Jedwab outlined a relationship among the state, the institutions of civil society, and identity needs underlying the questions posed for the session. In his estimation, understanding this relationship requires understanding issues of participation and representation, the relationship between the two, and, consequently, issues of empowerment and disempowerment as they unfold in different parts of the world. …
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".