Women's Organizations, Social Learning, and the Federal State: A Case Study of <scp>C</scp>anadian Pension Policy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The various ways which federalism influences gender policies has recently received a surge of academic interest. This article contributes to this literature by moving beyond formally adopted policies to study the influence of federalism on social learning amongst women's organizations. Using a most‐likely case study design, this exploratory work traces the policy positions held by women's organizations in C anada during a seven‐year period now known as the G reat P ension D ebate. Focusing on four empirical indicators of issue attention, participation in policy discussions, specificity of policy proposals, and consensus for reform, the findings suggest that the plurality and temporal proximity of successive policy venues – such as royal commissions and parliamentary committees – created by various governments offered women's organizations an optimum environment to engage in ongoing exchanges leading to the development, and greater specification, of policy positions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it