Making Connections: Women’s Health and the Anti-Globalization Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Vancouver recently I attended a protest organized by the Grassroots Womens Network. The protest was outside the Pan Pacific Hotel a swanky establishment on the waterfront that was hosting the Premiers meetings to discuss Canadas health care system. The women were protesting the possible privatization of health care expressing their concern that womens health would be particularly impacted. In their literature they made explicit links to larger global trends of neoliberalism and globalization. This was the first time I had seen these links being made in a Canadian protest. I was particularly interested because I had just completed a Masters degree where I had studied the impacts of globalization on womens health. What follows is drawn from that work. It is rooted in my interest in the possibilities for coalition-building moving away from the notion that different social movements are acting in entirely different spheres. It seems that many people in activist communities are recognizing the value of making connections to groups working in different areas of social change. Here I reflect on two movements that are not widely considered to be linked: the womens health movement and the anti-globalization movement. I begin with a description of the history growth and challenges of the womens health movement and then turn to a reflection of my own experiences as an anti-globalization protester searching for connections between the two as I go. (excerpt)
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".