Has the Recognition, Celebration and Actions of International Women's Day Inspired Equality? (Part 2 Q&A)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The first International Women's Day (IWD) was observed on March 19, 1911 in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. More than one million women and men showed their support of women by participating in public events. In 1977, following the long-standing movements for women to participate equally in society, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed a day for women's rights and international peace. Following the United Nations' lead, Canada chose March 8 as IWD and it has grown to become a global day of recognition, celebration and action. In many countries it is an official holiday. In Canada, more than 40 events will be held this year.Last year, organizations and individuals around the world supported the Pledge for Parity campaign and committed to help women and girls achieve their ambitions; challenge conscious and unconscious bias, particularly against indigenous people and people of colour; call for gender-balanced leadership; value women and men's contributions equally; and create inclusive cultures. The 2017 IWD campaign slogan is Be Bold for Change and it is hoped that women, men and non-binary people will join forces to create influence and take bold pragmatic action to accelerate gender parity. However, the World Economic Forum predicts the gender gap won't close entirely until the next century. The speakers will offer their thoughts on what it may take to close that gap sooner rather than later. Speakers: Glenda Bonifacio and Caroline Hodes Dr. Glenda Bonifacio joined the University of Lethbridge Department of Women & Gender Studies in 2005 and holds a BA in Social Sciences major in Political Science (magna cum laude, University of the Philippines); MA in Asian Studies (University of the Philippines); and a Ph.D. from the School of History and Politics, University of Wollongong, Australia. In 2015, Dr. Bonifacio was selected as one of the 100 most influential Filipina women in the World in the innovator and thought leader category. The award by the Filipina Women's Network (FWN) recognizes women who have broken new ground in the global workplace and has improved the lives of others.Dr. Caroline Hodes received her PhD from York University in 2013 and joined the University of Lethbridge Department of Women & Gender Studies in 2015. Prior to her appointment in Lethbridge she taught at the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University in Kingston and in Sociology at Trent University's Oshawa campus. Dr. Hodes research interests include human rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian and US feminist constitutionalism, and she has recently won a ULRF grant to fund her current work on representations of the body in Charter equality rights and Aboriginal rights litigation Moderator: Bev Muendel-Atherstone Date: Thursday, March 9, 2017 Time: Noon - 1:30 PM (30 minutes each for presentation, lunch and Q & A) Location: Country Kitchen Catering (lower level of The Keg) 1715 Mayor Magrath Dr. S Cost:$12.00 (includes lunch) or $2.00 (includes coffee/tea)
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,140 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».