Citizen Empowerment in the Digital Era: Redefining Administrative Legitimacy and Power Dynamics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In an era defined by unmatched digital connectivity and vibrant global activism, traditional hegemonic power structures are increasingly subject to scrutiny and transformation. This article examines how technological innovations, dynamic social movements, and emergent forms of global citizenship are reshaping public administration. These converging forces enhance transparency, accountability, and citizen participation, while simultaneously challenging conventional bureaucratic models and established notions of administrative legitimacy. Social movements, empowered by digital platforms, are not only contesting top‐down governance but also fostering new avenues for collective action and civic engagement. As these processes unfold, traditional administrative systems are being reimagined to accommodate the demands of a digitally empowered citizenry, creating a governance landscape that is more decentralized and responsive. This commentary highlights the complex interchange between digital governance, social mobilization, and global identity formation, and explores their implications for public policy and institutional accountability. It underlines both the potential of these forces and the risks they pose, such as exacerbating existing inequalities and power imbalances. Ultimately, the article calls for a comprehensive rethinking of public administration that adopts the benefits of this digital revolution while ensuring equity, transparency, and responsiveness in a rapidly interconnected world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it