Hvilke potentialer og udfordringer er der ved tidlig inddragelse af borgere i samproduktion af styring?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Få studier af samproduktion har fokus på borgernes tidlige inddragelse i inputfasen af et policyforløb. Men hvilke udfordringer og potentialer er der, når borgere, politikere og forvaltere samarbejder om nye måder at udvikle offentlig politik på? Artiklen tager afsæt i et studie af en samproduktionsproces med fokus på at udvikle en ny politik for borgerinddragelse i Albertslund kommune. Her deltog seks borgere, seks politikere inklusiv borgmesteren i et § 17, stk. 4-udvalg, understøttet af tre kommunalt ansatte, herunder kommunaldirektøren. Studiet viser, at processen i udvalget rummer store potentialer, idet at borgerne bliver styrket i deres demokratiske handlekraft og tillid til kommunen. Omvendt er udfordringen, at udbyttet af processen bliver en kort politik, der kritiseres for at være for overordnet og uden konkrete handlinger. Skal potentialerne ved borgernes tidlige inddragelse i samproduktion indfris, kræver det, at man er villig til at arbejde på nye måder.
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 | 0.022 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.035 |
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".