MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7031942907

Enactive Democracy

2015· dissertation· en· W7031942907 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousReciprocity (cultural anthropology)PoliticsSovereigntyDilemmaDemocracyJurisdictionScrutiny
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation describes the consequences of identifying democratic ideals of reasoning and reciprocity with political dialogue across difference. In contemporary pluralistic societies, many marginalized groups are faced with a choice between incurring the risks of participating and exposing vulnerable cultural practices to scrutiny within dominant institutions or the risks of withdrawing from participation. I argue that Indigenous peoples experience this `deliberative ultimatum' most forcefully as they seek to protect land-based forms of life through litigation and political negotiation. The dilemma arises because prevailing conceptions of reciprocity only extend to individuals, mutual reason-giving, or, in some models, to practices of mutual care that serve as the pre-conditions of mutual reason-giving. To illustrate, I show how within Canadian political and legal institutions, Indigenous modes of reason-giving suffer from systemic forms of denigration and dismissal. Moreover, some forms of Indigenous practical understandings either cannot be articulated or are culturally prohibited from being communicated. Hence, Indigenous peoples often formulate `proxy claims' aimed at strategic protection of Indigenous forms of life. Proxy claims aimed at gaining jurisdiction or title over land suffer form additional distortions, however, as officials who are authorized to preside over a jurisdiction vis-Ă -vis the territorial sovereignty of the state must reconfigure claims to fall under their purview. The ensuing regulations can be more harmful than when practices were enacted without regulated sanction.\nAs a corrective, this dissertation takes initial steps in developing a theoretical and institutional model that preserves the democratic ideals of reasoning and reciprocity without imposing dialogue on vulnerable communities or incurring risks related to the deliberative ultimatum such as the strategic formulation of proxy claims. What I call `enactive democracy' takes practices and forms of life themselves as objects of reciprocity and attends not to speech but to the reasoning that inheres in embodied practices when norms of conduct are establish, contested and modified non-discursively. From here we can see that institutions of cultural autonomy captured in such arrangements as `treaty federalism' or `subsidiarity' can be justified on democratic grounds as a pre-condition of effective reasoning both within and between different cultural forms of life. I conclude with a discussion the application of enactive theory to the emerging fields of deliberative systems and comparative political theory.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207