Frontiers in Political Science research

web

frontiersin.org·frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.33...

This political science paper on democratic innovation and collective intelligence is tangentially relevant to AI governance discussions about how to design inclusive, legitimate decision-making processes for emerging technology oversight.

Metadata

Importance: 35/100journal articleanalysis

Summary

This Frontiers in Political Science article examines the intersection of democratic innovation and collective intelligence as tools for improving governance processes. It likely explores how participatory mechanisms and crowd-sourced deliberation can enhance policy-making and democratic legitimacy. The piece contributes to debates around scaling democratic participation through technology and structured collective decision-making.

Key Points

•Explores how collective intelligence mechanisms can be integrated into democratic governance frameworks
•Examines democratic innovation tools that may improve legitimacy and responsiveness of political institutions
•Considers participatory and deliberative methods as alternatives or complements to representative democracy
•Relevant to AI governance debates about how to incorporate diverse stakeholder input into policy processes

Cited by 1 page

Page	Type	Quality
AI-Assisted Deliberation	Approach	63.0

Cached Content Preview

HTTP 200Fetched Apr 9, 202665 KB

Frontiers | Awareness of opinion change: evidence from two deliberative mini-publics 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

 Front. Polit. Sci. , 05 January 2024 

 Sec. Political Science Methodologies

 Volume 5 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1300149 

 Published in Frontiers in Political Science 

 Political Science Methodologies

 
 1.9 impact factor
 3.8 citescore
 Editor & Reviewers

 Edited by

 J A Joseph Aistrup

 Auburn University, United States

 Reviewed by

 C B Camille Bedock

 UMR5116 Centre Émile durkheim Science Politique et Sociologie Comparatives, France

 T S Thomas Scotto

 University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom

 Outline 

 Figures and Tables Figure 1

 View in article 
 Table 1

 Characteristics of mini-publics. 

 View in article 
 Table 2

 Percentages for awareness. 

 View in article 
 Table 3

 Descriptive statistics for empirical measures. 

 View in article 
 Table 4

 Pairwise correlations between awareness and empirical measures. 

 View in article 
 Table 5

 Differences in associations depending on treatment. 

 View in article 
 Table 6

 Pairwise correlations between awareness and empirical measures, alternative questions. 

 View in article 
 Table 7

 Mean scores and t -tests of differences. 

 View in article 
 Table 8

 Alternative coding of interaction terms. 

 View in article 
 Table A1

 Items for measuring opinion change. 

 View in article 
 Table A2

 Factor analysis. 

 View in article 
 ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

 Front. Polit. Sci. , 05 January 2024 

 Sec. Political Science Methodologies

 Volume 5 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1300149 

 Awareness of opinion change: evidence from two deliberative mini-publics 

 S H Staffan Himmelroos 1 * 

 
 H S Henrik Serup Christensen 2 

 
 
 1. Swedish School of Social Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

 2. Faculty of Social Sciences, Business and Economics, and Law, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland

 Article metrics 

 View details Abstract

 Although opinion changes during discussions and negotiations have been studied extensively in different fields of research, surprisingly little effort has been put into studying whether people correctly recognize that they revised their opinions. This is important because it has implications for both the cognitive mechanisms underpinning these changes and their likely consequences. We in this study examine whether participants in two deliberative mini-publics (DMP) were able to determine the extent to which they revised their opinions (DMP1 = 135; DMP2 = 207). We measure awareness with two questions asking respondents to indicate the extent to which their opinions and views changed during the processes, while we ascertain the actual developments with three measures that capture developments in opinions and attitude consisten

... (truncated, 65 KB total)

Resource ID: 81fec2ec91e85979 | Stable ID: sid_PF78iZXn5R