Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1 to 6 April 1971, over 600 women gathered to attend the Vancouver Indochinese Women’s Conference (viwc), an international women’s antiwar conference organized by women’s liberationists in Vancouver. The conference was intended to bring women together under the banner of an international sisterhood, but this desired goal did not happen. Instead, tensions between American and Canadian women divided conference organizers and attendees, culminating in verbal and physical conflict. The viwc is useful for examining how Canadian women experienced interactions with American feminists and radical activists in attendance at the conference. Several women viewed the actions of American delegates as imperialistic. The experiences of conference organizers and attendees show how the viwc represents a moment in women’s liberation where the limits to international feminism were particularly visible. Du 1er au 6 avril 1971, plus de 600 femmes se sont réunies pour assister à la Conférence des femmes indochinoises de Vancouver (cfiv), une conférence internationale contre la guerre organisée par les défenseurs de la libération des femmes à Vancouver. La conférence avait pour but de rassembler les femmes sous la bannière d’une fraternité internationale, mais cet objectif souhaité n’a pas été atteint. En revanche, les tensions entre les femmes américaines et les femmes canadiennes ont divisé les organisateurs de la conférence et les participants, aboutissant à des conflits verbaux et physiques. La cfiv est utile pour examiner comment les femmes canadiennes ont vécu des interactions avec des féministes américaines et des activistes radicaux présents à la conférence. Plusieurs femmes ont considéré les actions des délégués américains comme impérialistes. L’expérience des organisateurs et des participants de la conférence montrent à quel point la cfiv représente un moment dans la libération des femmes où les limites au féminisme international étaient particulièrement visibles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".