From “Listening” to Collaborative Policymaking: Encouraging Government Engagement with Civil Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The digital age has helped to create an environment where civic engagement could flourish. The quality and quantity of data have increased and new mechanisms for engagement make it simpler than ever before. Despite this, civic engagement activities often resemble exercises in listening more than active two‐way dialogue. With the Government of Canada as its focus, this article asks what changes need to be made to improve civic engagement—to make it more interactive and iterative—so that its potential as an element of good governance can be better realized? Drawing on contemporary examples of engagement related to transparency, it is argued that improvements need to focus on increasing institutionalization of engagement, improving the visibility of engagement opportunities, and building and sustaining relationships and trust with citizens.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".