“We-Sisters” and the Rights of Women to Equality: Analysis of Dissenting Opinions Surrounding the Enactment of Bill 63 Amending the <i>Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2008, the government of Québec amended the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, adding to section 10, which already prohibits sex discrimination, two sections specifically recognizing women’s equality with men. The enactment of this law recognizing gender equality as a fundamental value of Québec society has raised very important legal, political, and sociological issues. The women’s movement, which had not requested such an amendment and which had not been consulted, was forced to respond to it nonetheless. This amendment brought to the surface the latent debate between “pure laine” feminists and feminists from the cultural communities in Québec—the debate on “we-sisters” (“nous-femmes”). By analyzing the representations made by women’s groups and other social groups before the Social Affairs Commission whose task it was to reflect on Bill 63, this article seeks to explore the various manifestations of dissension on this issue within the Québec feminist movement. The analysis highlights the difficulty of defining “we-sisters,” of building priorities, and of establishing strategies. Is the right to equality still at the heart of women’s demands?
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 | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.077 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".