MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111842898 · doi:10.7202/044426ar

Les femmes nommées ministres au Canada pendant la période 1921-2007 : la loi de la disparité progressive est-elle dépassée?

2010· article· fr· W2111842898 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Manon Tremblay, Sarah Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches féministes · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce texte examine la participation des femmes aux cabinets canadiens, et ce, à la lumière de la loi de la disparité progressive. Trois hypothèses l’ont inspiré : 1) la proportion de femmes nommées ministres est plus élevée que la proportion de femmes élues députées; 2) la proportion de femmes au Cabinet reflète la proportion de députées au sein du caucus parlementaire du parti qui forme le gouvernement; 3) les femmes nommées ministres sont cantonnées dans les secteurs traditionnellement considérés comme féminins et au bas de la hiérarchie exécutive. Ces hypothèses ont été vérifiées auprès des 286 femmes nommées ministres dans un cabinet fédéral ou provincial au Canada de 1921 à 2007. Il ressort de l’analyse que la loi de la disparité progressive offre un potentiel heuristique mitigé pour expliquer la participation des femmes aux cabinets canadiens.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches féministesSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207