Resident Inclusion in the Age of Participation: A Study of Toronto’s Participatory Budgeting Pilot Project 2015-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory budgeting and other participatory forms of public engagement have reached a high point of popularity as a best practice of democratic government.This gives some cause for celebration for those seeking to democratize democracy.However, recent scholarship has revealed a perplexing paradox in how new opportunities for resident involvement remain countered by pre-existing approaches to decision-making guided by abstract notions of public interest.This dissertation seeks to better understanding this paradox by focusing on one of the newest cases of participatory budgeting in North America emerging from one of North America's biggest cities.As an investigation of the City of Toronto's participatory budgeting pilot project, running from 2015 to 2017, this dissertation demonstrates that this paradox is indeed taking place in Toronto.Using a Gramscian analysis of power with a particular focus on the construction of knowledge, this dissertation provides an explanation of how participatory ideals are mobilized alongside prevailing forms of authority to provide new participatory opportunities for involvement without a significant transition of power.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".