Disparate Fates in Challenging Times: Women's Policy Agencies and Neoliberalism in Aotearoa/New Zealand and British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.This article develops an explanation for the different approaches to existing women's policy agencies adopted by governments of the right elected to office in Aotearoa/New Zealand (in 1990) and in the province of British Columbia (in 2001). In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Ministry of Women's Affairs remained structurally intact, while in British Columbia the Ministry of Women's Equality was eliminated and replaced with a women's policy agency that constitutes a small subunit within a much larger ministry. My analysis of these developments focuses on the impact of two institutional features of the women's ministries: (1) the nature of the activities in which they were involved and the different allocations of their budgetary resources that these activities entailed; and (2) the relationship between each ministry and community-based women's groups. I also explore the interaction between these institutional variables and the particular way in which a discourse of “special interests” has been expressed within the party of the right in each case. Résumé.Cet article développe une explication des différences d'attitude envers les agences chargées des politiques concernant les femmes entre les gouvernements de droite qui ont été élus à Aotearoa/Nouvelle-Zélande (en 1990), et en Colombie-Britannique (en 2001). À Aotearoa/Nouvelle-Zélande, la structure du ministère des Affaires des femmes est restée intacte, tandis qu'en Colombie-Britannique le ministère de l'Égalité des femmes a été éliminé et remplacé par une agence chargée des politiques concernant les femmes, qui n'est qu'une petite sous-unité d'un ministère beaucoup plus étendu. Mon analyse de ces développements porte sur l'impact de deux aspects institutionnels des ministères de la condition féminine: (1) le caractère de leurs activités et les différences correspondantes d'allocation de leurs ressources budgétaires; (2) le rapport entre chaque ministère et les groupes féministes des collectivités locales. En plus, j'explore l'interaction entre ces variables institutionnelles et la formation de l'argument d'“ intérêts particuliers ” avancé par le parti de droite dans chaque cas.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".