Reflections on the Meaning of “Community” in Inclusive Stakeholder Engagement*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores the concept of community within the wider context of stakeholder engagement. First, we examine early notions of community as defined by rurality, homogeneity, social cohesion, and collaboration, which continue to inform place-based understandings of community that are used in stakeholder engagement. Second, we draw on nationalism and social movement studies to discuss cultural-symbolic understandings of community that are built around shared collective identities. Third, we draw on social network approaches to discuss community as made up of relations and practices of collaboration – as well as conflict – among people who are part of the same formal and informal social networks. Through the typology of place-based, cultural, and relational understandings of community, this chapter proposes a pluralistic approach to defining community. By adopting a more pluralistic understanding of community, this chapter contributes to the conceptual development of understanding who makes up the stakeholders in processes of inclusive stakeholder engagement.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".