Voices from the rising of the curtain: Democracy and deliberation bringing the disadvantaged to the fore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large and growing body of literature has attempted to devise discussion frameworks for school education. However, conceptualizing deliberation able to appreciate the expression of socially disadvantaged people has received relatively little attention. Since the voices of culturally and linguistically depreciated populations would disappear in the institutionalized deliberation process, this paper aims to extend the meaning of democratic deliberation capable of putting forward marginalized accounts. The paper proposes and builds a temporal speech stage named ‘generating deliberation’ on which superiority-based claims can weaken through ‘expressive speech’ anchored in the democratic value of equality. The paper also addresses how expressive speech requires truth-telling based ‘mindful speech’ as a basis for the democratic value of freedom and a more attentive dialogue of generating deliberation. The article first explores divergent assumptions associated with democratic deliberation and their potential dilemmas in foregrounding socially marginalized people. Next, it examines the concept of critical awareness put to work through Rancière’s ideas of dissensus and equality, followed by Foucault’s parrhesia and freedom. Whilst navigating the magnitude of freedom and equality, the paper theorizes generating deliberation as an expressive/mindful conversation that illuminates the socially invisible. The process of generating deliberation would ultimately enrich deliberation participants’ formative experiences of democracy and education.
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 | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".