MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392031634 · doi:10.3390/socsci13030127

Best Practices for Municipalities to Promote Online Citizen Participation and Engagement on Facebook: A Narrative Review of the Literature

2024· review· en· W4392031634 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurence Guillaumie, Lydi‐Anne Vézina‐Im, Laurence Bourque, Olivier Boiral, David Talbot, Elsie Harb

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration PubliqueUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPublic relationsNarrativeThematic analysisAppealBest practiceSocial mediaPolitical scienceBusinessInternet privacySociologyQualitative researchComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to identify the best practices of Facebook use for municipalities looking to communicate and interact with their citizens, with a particular impact for rural municipalities. A narrative review was conducted to identify the scientific and gray literature on research databases and Google, respectively. A thematic analysis of the data was conducted to summarize the main strengths, challenges, and recommendations to improve municipalities’ Facebook use. Our results showed many benefits of Facebook use for municipalities and elected officials, such as communicating efficiently with citizens. The main challenge identified was developing an effective communication strategy. Finally, several recommendations were found, such as making Facebook posts that appeal to citizens and promote discussion. These results will be useful in helping municipalities develop an effective Facebook communication strategy to improve online engagement and citizen participation for local governments.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.384
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial SciencesSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207