The erasure of “gender” in Canadian foreign policy under the Harper Conservatives: the significance of the discursive shift from “gender equality” to “equality between women and men”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
s/RésumésAn important discursive shift took place in 2009 when government staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) – now the Department for Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) – were instructed to replace the term “gender equality” with “equality between women and men”. In this article, we document Canada's role as a self-proclaimed leader in the promotion of gender equality prior to 2009, and feminist critiques of Canadian foreign policy over time. We draw on feminist theory and critical foreign policy scholarship as well as interviews with mid-level bureaucrats to understand the reasons for – and implications of – the change in discourse from “gender equality” to “equality between women and men”. We argue that the shift in language was significant for several reasons including a departure from Canadian best practices and Canadàs international identity in the promotion of gender equality in recent history.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".