MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205737205 · doi:10.46692/9781447360520.008

Participation: challenging the barriers

2021· other· en· W4205737205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicResearch in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A voice is a human gift; it should be cherished and used, to utter as fully human speech as possible. Powerlessness and silence go together. Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and writer, quoted in Adams, 2009 This chapter looks at overcoming the powerful barriers that can prevent us having any involvement in the ideologies that are the backdrop to our lives. To reiterate, the focus of this book is political ideology and the exclusion of most people from its formation and development. Ideology may be a particular example, but the reality is that most people have little involvement or say in most organisations, policies, institutions, processes and political structures that affect their lives. As we have noted, there has been an enormous increase in interest in public and other participation in recent years. Yet it remains far from a routine reality. Much of the discussion about it is simplistic and superficial – as though progressing participation is only a matter of deciding to do it. The fact that involvement is often so limited should serve as a warning that this is generally far from the case. Much more than good intentions and warm feelings are likely to be needed for it to become a reality – especially in the contentious domain of political ideology. Ironically, in recent years, some disabled people – despite being part of a marginalised group and because of their collective skill and determination – have gained more say and involvement than many non-disabled people. For all the comforting talk about ‘getting involved’, ‘listening to your views’ and ‘hearing what you say’, power and wealth have arguably never been so narrowly concentrated internationally or class and global inequalities so great (Dorling, 2015). For all the rhetoric about participation and involvement, understated issues of power and power inequalities continue to be central. Power is perhaps the third crucial concept that we need to subject to more careful consideration in this discussion, since power and our relations to it are central to what say and involvement we are actually really likely to have and how far we are able to gain ownership of ideologies. Power In the first part of this book we encountered the two-way relationship between power and ideology. Power gives force to ideology, making it possible to impose it, while ideology is often used to legitimate 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1540.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResearch in Social SciencesFrench-language works237,207