MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328460664 · doi:10.1017/s1743923x1000036x

Analyzing Institutional Persistence: The Case of the Ministry of Women's Affairs in Aotearoa/New Zealand

2010· article· en· W2328460664 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Curtin, Katherine Teghtsoonian

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics & Gender · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAotearoaChristian ministryAgency (philosophy)PoliticsMinistry of Foreign AffairsContext (archaeology)Public administrationPolitical scienceRestructuringBureaucracyState (computer science)SociologySocial scienceLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ministry of Women's Affairs in Aotearoa/New Zealand was established as a stand-alone agency in 1986. It has remained institutionally intact for more than 20 years, unlike many women's policy agencies that have been downsized or eliminated. It has survived significant economic and state sector restructuring and weathered the extension of neoliberal orientations into the reform of social policy. We analyze New Zealand's version of state feminism during three political periods since its inception. For each period, we identify significant developments both in the broader political context and within the ministry itself, and examine how effective Women's Affairs has been in advancing the substantive interests of diverse groups of women. Our analysis identifies three key features of the Ministry of Women's Affairs—its political context, its political and bureaucratic leadership, and its institutional design—as important in explaining both the ministry's continued existence and the limits on what it has been able to achieve.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics & GenderSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207