Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory practices have increasingly gained prominence within EU governance, with the concept of participation seemingly becoming an integral component of EU policy documents. One of the ways the EU seeks to enhance participation is through initiatives such as the European Capital of Culture (ECOC). Existing research on participation in the ECOC has predominantly focused on single case studies, with a notable lack of comparative analysis. The uniqueness of this paper lies in its attempt to connect multiple cases, contributing to critical interpretation and theoretical development within the field. It aims to systematically explore how ECOC host cities govern participation, strategies for promoting citizen engagement, and the challenges associated with participation. In terms of data sources, this study refers to EU policy documents, evaluation reports, and academic journal articles, with the research period spanning from 2007 to 2019. The analytical framework is to examine five types of participation, including public engagement, accessibility, community empowerment, co-creation, and participatory governance.
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 | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".