Mechanisms for Implementing Projects Initiated by Civil Society at the Local Level in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Civic initiatives are seen as a critical tool for democratization of public administration, expanding opportunities for public participation in decision-making processes and their implementation. Governments at all levels use various mechanisms to support civic initiatives, which do not always lend themselves to a single classification, which makes it relevant to conduct a comparative analysis of individual countries. The main object of the study is the interaction between local governments and civic communities, the subject of the study is the approaches to managing initiative projects implemented on the basis of both participatory budgeting and related practices in the United States and Canada. The article analyzes the experience of involving people and public organizations in the processes of allocating funds from local budgets, budgets of public corporations, or specialized funds. The models of civil society participation depending on the sources of funding and mechanisms of implementation of initiative projects are revealed. It is concluded that the permanent nature of support has led to the consolidation of the civil community and the expansion of their influence on the management of municipal finances.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".