The Politics of Participation in Cultural Policy Making
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.
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 | 0.034 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".