Climbing Parliament’s Hill: Examining the Lack of Gender Parity Within Canadian Parliament
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The goal of this thesis is to examine the question: why the current 42nd Parliament of Canada fails to achieve gender parity within the House of Commons? Additionally, it assists in comprehending why Canada’s Parliament does not have a substantial number of female Members of Parliament (MPs). The paper also looks at the low number of women candidates in the 2015 election in comparison to the number of male candidates. I also study the contributing factors hindering the progress of parity. My initial hypothesis is that the lack of gender parity in the House of Commons is due to the political process, which includes the role of political parties, the electoral system, the lifestyle of MPs and the role of the media. I also hypothesize that it is due to incumbency and the lack of priority given to achieving gender parity. Thus, with a lack of priority and more male candidates, achieving gender parity is more difficult. This also includes the lack of willingness on the part of certain leaders and parities.\nWhile certain scholars have studied components of gender parity, I believe there is a gap in the literature. Furthermore, the vast majority of scholarship tends to focus on one specific component of gender parity and not the various components together. The literature also does not delve deep enough into the issue and for this reason I hope to add to the existing literature. Subsequently, this may further assist in helping close the gap. \nWithin the thesis, I employ various research methods. One of the research methods is the use of both primary sources and secondary academic studies. This includes both Canadian and non-Canadian sources which are then applied to my arguments. Another method is the conducting of interviews with current and former MPs. I also look at newspaper articles, government databases and websites, bills presented by MPs and public speeches/statements.\nAfter conducting my research, I find a number of factors contributing to the lack of gender parity in Parliament. I also examine the various regional patterns of female candidacy within in Canada, prior to presenting my findings. I find that one of the factors contributing to the lack of gender parity is due to the role and responsibility of political parties and leaders. Another factor is the electoral system. Other factors include the role of the media and the profession itself. I also examine a number of potential solutions that can assist in achieving gender parity, although I do not endorse any one particular remedy. These include quotas, electoral reform, the appointment and promotion of women within parties, making Parliament more “women friendly” or “family friendly”, role models and mentoring, financial penalties and incentives, and running women in more “winnable ridings”. In conclusion, after researching and examining these factors, my findings reveal that my initial hypothesize was only partly correct and did not go far enough. Furthermore, my initial hypothesis did not include potential solutions for gender inequality. On a personal level, I find the role of political parties and leaders the most convincing.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,024 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».