Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate about the underrepresentation of women in politics rests on two conceptions of political representation, namely the descriptive and the substantive. The descriptive perspective is that political institutions should reflect the composition of civil society, while the substantive (or feminist) conception argues that, since women offer unique perspectives, their exclusion from political power means that their needs, demands, and interests would currently not be echoed in the political arena. However, a causal link is sometimes too easily established between the number of women elected and its consequences for the female population in general. This article defines, within the context of Canadian parliamentarianism, the scope and limits of this equation between descriptive and substantive representation of women. The conclusion reached is that feminist consciousness has a more significant influence than gender on opinions regarding liberal and gender-related issues. It appears the best feminist strategy to descriptively and substantively represent women is to promote women within political parties, and to elect women who are feminists. The names of the Canadian political parties appear in abbreviated form: Bloc Québécois (BQ), Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP), and Reform Party (RP).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".