Policy Commissions and Representation of Aboriginal Women Issues: A Case-Study of the New Democratic Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy commissions within Canadian political parties have been under researched; thus, it is unclear if these commissions are the representative mechanisms they claim to be. Specifically, research is lacking on the Aboriginal and women’s policy commissions in the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) and the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) and if these commissions allow for Aboriginal women to contribute to party policy-making. Based on the theories of intersectionality and feminist institutionalism, a gender-based discourse analysis was applied to the policy resolutions of the 2009 NDP Convention and the 2009 LPC Convention. Furthermore, the parties’ 2011 electoral platforms were examined to see if the resolutions were integrated. The research found that the policy commissions of the NDP and the LPC do not impact the party platform policy on Aboriginal women’s issues. Furthermore, party ideology and institutional restraints contributed to the restriction of the policy commissions as policy-making bodies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".