Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ellen Riordan & Eileen Meehan’s Sex and Money: Feminism and Political Economy in the Media (2001) haunts the imagination of many women drawn to the study of communication today. Their edited volume is the best-known comprehensive overview of feminist political economy in Anglo-American scholarship from the past 10 years and includes the work of several Canadian feminist scholars. The volume identified profound problems in regulatory regimes, audience research, and employment advocacy that remain largely unanswered to this day. When filmmaker and activist Rina Fraticelli brought her organization Women in View to Simon Fraser University’s School of Communication in 2008 as a potential partner, she was looking for a catalyst to revive discussions of a glass ceiling in the media and persistent (and new) problems in the representation of women. She was alarmed by the silence in Canadian policy research and failure of policy advocacy to raise any serious gender critique of existing film and TV institutions, interests, or actors. A steering committee, including Fraticelli, Marsha Newbery (a documentary filmmaker and doctoral candidate at SFU), and the authors (both SFU Communication professors), Sara Diamond (president of the Ontario College of Art and Design University), Beth Seaton (adjunct professor in women’s studies at the University of British Columbia), and over 50 other advisors, pulled together an international conference in Vancouver October 14 to 16, 2010, attracting 170 attendees from the media, academy, and not-for-profit sector. The conference won seed funding from SFU’s School of Communication and Faculty of Communication, Art and Technology, British Columbia Film, the City of Vancouver, the Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities at SFU, and the Ontario College of Art and Design University. Sara Diamond also led a successful application to win Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada conference funds for the digital-themed panels. Formal buy-in from the major policy institutions—the Department of Canadian Heritage, CBC, or Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission— was never achieved. However, many organizations ultimately provided support for
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".