Bilan des réformes électorales au Canada : Quelle place pour les femmes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.Ce texte examine les différents projets de réforme électorale proposés depuis le tournant du millénaire dans les provinces canadiennes et au Nunavut, et ce, avec le souci de mettre au jour la place qu'ils aménagèrent à l'objectif d'accentuer la féminisation des assemblées législatives. L'idée maîtresse qui l'inspire veut que les propositions réformatrices aient réservé une importance le plus souvent nulle, bien que parfois accessoire, mais jamais centrale, à cette question. Pourtant, le Québec, et surtout le territoire du Nunavut, se démarquent par l'attention qu'ils portèrent au problème de l'effacement des femmes de la scène politique et leurs propositions de réforme ont offert des réponses plus à même de le solutionner. Abstract.This essay examines the different electoral reform projects proposed since the turn of the millennium in Canadian provinces and the territory of Nunavut, in order to reveal what accommodation they have made to the objective of increasing the feminization of legislative assemblies. My guiding idea is that most reform proposals have given no, or sometimes peripheral, emphasis to this question but have never made it a central issue. However, Quebec and, even more, Nunavut stand out for the attention that they have paid to the absence of women from the political scene, and their reform proposals have included responses that might offer a solution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".