MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411933326 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2025.16.1.17224

Inclusive and Participatory Policymaking at the Local Level: Problems and Possibilities

2025· article· en· W4411933326 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Leah Levac, Jacqueline Gillis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCitizen journalismIndigenousPolitical scienceSociologyPublic administrationEnvironmental planningGeographyLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipalities are being called on to become more participatory in their approach to policy making and governing. Concurrently, they are working toward making their policies, programs, and staff complements more inclusive and equitable, and more responsive to the ongoing consequences of colonialism and other forms of systemic discrimination. These developments share common normative and theoretical foundations, but municipalities are not necessarily actively working on these changes in tandem. In response, we ask, “What are the problems and possibilities that emerge in efforts to centre Indigenous Knowledges and intersectional commitments in participatory policymaking processes at the local level?” We highlight two barriers that arise persistently in these efforts and suggest modest ways forward that will be useful for municipal public servants working on community engagement; diversity, equity, inclusion efforts; and building relationships with Indigenous residents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.072
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0720.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0230.048
Scholarly communication0.0290.021
Open science0.0040.029
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207