Participation and Praxis: A Study of How Participatory Budgeting Deepens Democracy by Institutionalizing Critical Consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Government policies are predicated by certain interests.In a democratic society, these interests are assumed to be those of the people, perhaps as expressed through an elected representative.However, the pervasive influence of elites in conjunction with the decreased competent use of established democratic institutions on the part of the public, point to the need for new institutions and new ways of conceptualizing public interest.This paper posits that participatory budgeting presents such an institution in facilitating a more accurate conception of public interest by empowering an openly accessible, deliberative space.Participatory budgeting has made an impact in some Brazilian cities since 1989, and has been experimented with more recently in Canada, and the United States.Using Paulo Freire's conception of praxis, this paper explores if these processes are a viable and sustainable method for redefining public interest in the eyes of policymakers and the public alike.
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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".