MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404173965 · doi:10.1080/14649357.2024.2421514

Micropolitics in Participatory Processes: The Impact of Ableism and Other ‘Hidden’ Power Structures on Equitable Participation and Outcomes

2024· article· en· W4404173965 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsCitizen journalismPower (physics)SociologyParticipatory action researchPolitical scienceLawAnthropologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theoretical understandings of micropolitics and ableism provided a framework to analyze power relations and their impacts in a participatory design process. Micropolitics allowed a focus on small scale interactions and relational processes that impact outcomes of participation, and revealed the importance of problem framing and coalition building. We also found resistance to ableism through micropolitical strategies including: the sharing of experiential narratives; the use of expressive communication styles; and the development of alliances. These helped challenge norms of ableism in the deliberative process. Suggested practices for planners and facilitators who want to intervene in status quo ablest practices are identified.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.396 · 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