The Politics of Participation in Cultural Policy Making
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract RECENT ATTEMPTS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ENGAGE IN PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING HINT AT A WILLINGNESS FOR A MORE DEMOCRATICALLY INCLUSIVE APPROACH TO POLICY. HOWEVER, THERE IS OFTEN A GAP BETWEEN THE RHETORIC OF CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE POLICY-MAKING INITIATIVES. THERE IS CONCERN THAT, IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, THE TERMS ‘CO-PRODUCTION’ AND ‘PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY’ HAVE BEEN ADOPTED WHILST THE PARTICIPATORY NATURE OF POLICY-MAKING PROCEDURES HAS, IN REALITY, REMAINED VERY LIMITED. THIS ARTICLE AIMS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THESE BROADER DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES AROUND THE DEMOCRATIC NATURE OF ‘CO-PRODUCED’ POLICY PRACTICES. THIS ARTICLE CONSIDERS CALGARY’S RECENT ‘CO-PRODUCED’ CULTURAL PLAN AS A POTENTIAL EXAMPLE OF PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING. USING A FRAMEWORK BASED ON KEY CONCEPTS WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC THEORY, INCLUDING WORKS BY ARNSTEIN (1969), RAWLS (1971) AND PATEMAN (1970, 2012), WE CONSIDER HOW THE STRATEGY ADOPTS PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING PROCESSES, AND QUESTION HOW THE PLAN’S DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS SUCCEEDED AND FAILED IN CREATING MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it