MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235826452 · doi:10.4018/9781599049472.ch129

E-Democracy and Local Government - Dashed Expectations

2011· book-chapter· en· W4235826452 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Government · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyPolitical scienceLocal governmentPolitical economyPublic administrationEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the impact of information and communications technologies (ICTs) on electronic democracy at the local government level. It concentrates on measures taken by local governments in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom to transform their relationship to citizens by means of e-democracy. The emphasis on democracy is particularly important in an era when governments at all levels are said to be facing a democratic deficit (Hale, Musso, & Weare, 1999; Juillet & Paquet, 2001). Yet, as this article argues by means of an examination of the available evidence in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, e-democracy has failed to deepen democracy at the local level, this at a time when local government is said to be becoming more important in people’s lives (Mälkiä & Savolainen, 2004). The first part of the article briefly summarizes the arguments on behalf of the growing importance of the city as a major locus of economic and political activity. It then discusses how e-democracy relates to e-government in general. Next, it discusses the normative relationship between two models of democracy and ICTs. The article then reviews the evidence to date of e-democracy at the local level of government in the aforementioned countries. Finally, it discusses why e-democracy has not lived up to expectations highlighting the dominance of neo-liberalism. Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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