Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the rise of the participation paradigm from the early 1980s through the end of the 1990s, noting that it is still the dominant discourse within the field of communication for development (c4d) today. The idea of people participating in their own development goes back to the beginning of communication for development and social change. This approach refocused the effort of c4d on people as the engines of change, and trusting them to be up to the challenge. This chapter first considers different kinds of participation and what they might mean, along with the context for participatory communication in c4d during the period 1970–1990s. It then turns to pioneers of participatory communication in development and goes on to address the question of whether the approach deserves the title of paradigm, much less that of a dominant one. It also examines a case that illustrates both the problems and the successes of the application of the participation paradigm: Canada's Challenge for Change initiative, implemented by the National Film Board in Fogo Island.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.009 |
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".