Canadian Provincial Policies and Programs for Women in Leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Equal Voice (2011), women represent 52% of Canada’s population but only make up an average of 21% of Canada’s municipal councils, provincial legislatures and the House of Commons. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is committed to ensuring the number of women in municipal government increases by using the minimal percentage of 30 percent of women in municipal government as recommended by The United Nations. This report examines International, Canadian, and provincial/territorial policies for women in municipal leadership. A jurisdictional scan component of this research compares Newfoundland and Labrador to Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to the 30 percent mark to note successful and unsuccessful attempts to encourage women into municipal leadership. Recommendations are made at the end of the report to showcase successful programs and policies and give ideas for mobilization of knowledge purposes for all of the provinces. The goal of the research is to showcase the work of the provinces/territories and create a dialogue of what provinces/territories can do for future campaigns to encourage women to run for municipal government.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".