Exploring the potential and limits of digital tools for inclusive regulatory engagement with citizens
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, independent regulatory agencies like competition authorities, water and energy regulators have increasingly turned to citizen engagement, including via digital channels. In this study, we seek to shed light on the potential and limits of economic regulators' digital engagement with citizens, compared to traditional, non-digital equivalents. More specifically, we analyse the costs and benefits of four prominent (digital) engagement tools in relation to inclusion, focusing on three key challenges for inclusive citizen engagement: (i) access, (ii) accessible information, and (iii) support in making contributions. Furthermore, we assess the technical, social, and organisational conditions under which the use of the tools can be more inclusive. We conclude that ‘turning digital’ has important advantages for inclusive regulatory engagement but is no panacea. Yet, whilst some challenges cannot be unilaterally tackled by regulators, there is considerable room for these organisations to raise the inclusiveness of their engagement, both by combining tools and modes of engagement, and by expanding their toolbox.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 it