Public participation and management of natural resources: what potential influence for participants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several public authorities in the energy and natural resources sector in Canada and Quebec have set up participatory mechanisms to better integrate citizens’ concerns in the planning of their projects. To this end, the ministries have developed a corpus of texts structuring their approaches and their relationships with participants. The objective of this article is to study how the potential of influence granted to the participants on the decision-making process is transcribed in this documentation. We used we the documentation of four Canadian (2) and Quebec (2) counterpart ministries. From these documents, we carried out a qualitative analysis of content guided by six key principles emerging from the literature and testifying the influence granted to the participants. Although participatory approaches open the decision-making process to the general public, they are based on symbolic participation. Greater transparency and openness in the process through systematic reporting, a clearer definition of the role of the expert and the establishment of a culture of evaluation of the participatory process could help build a more authentic participation. The small sample of this study as well as the choice to retain six criteria prevent the generalization of this observation. However, the present study provides a better understanding of how public authorities in this sector of activity perceive the potential of participants to influence the decision-making process. It would be relevant for future research to see how these processes are actually set up and how participants perceive them.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".