Stakeholder Communication and Its Impact on Participatory Development Planning in Rural Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study delves into the dynamics of stakeholder communication within the realm of Participatory Development Planning (PDP) in rural regions, which are predominantly marked by a potent patriarchal culture.Utilizing a quantitative explanatory survey approach paired with path analysis, data was compiled from 40 local stakeholders.These respondents included representatives from the village government, as well as members of socio-economic and cultural factions within the village community.Our research underscores that the stakeholder communication processes within PDP are of high intensity, though this intensity wanes when interactions with regional government organizations come into play.Further, the study finds that the unique characteristics and aspirations of stakeholders wield significant influence over the PDP communication process.These insights offer a valuable understanding of the complexities of stakeholder communication in rural development planning, with an emphasis on the necessity to bolster communication with regional government organizations.It is inferred from the study that the quality of development planning and programs, even at a grassroots level, hinges on the competencies of stakeholders, their ability to articulate interests founded on the real needs and challenges of the community, and their capacity to transform these interests into public policy through effective communication with government organizations.
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 | 0.030 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".