Participedia as a Ground for Dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participedia (participedia.net) is a wiki-based library of some 1,000 cases of democratic innovations in their historical and cultural contexts. Public-involvement (PI) practitioners can learn about changes in their field of practice. The relative strength of the five dialogic qualities available in Participedia is important because of the values of communicative understanding inherent in the domain of democratic innovations. The question addressed in the study is, How does a community of practice (COP) augment Participedia's capacity to provide a ground for dialogue about PI? A quasi-experiment was carried out among 13 PI practitioners. COP members met face-to-face over a period of four weeks to learn about, apply, and deliberate upon Participedia's online resources. A focus group was then carried out in which the PI practitioners reflected on the qualities of dialogue available in the COP-Participedia experience. Themes from the focus group support the argument that COP-Participedia can augment the dialogic qualities of mutuality, propinquity, and empathy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".