MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000569657 · doi:10.1057/9781137009227_7

Gendering Government

2012· book-chapter· en· W3000569657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kendra Coulter

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatriarchyHegemonyPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)LegislatureHegemonic masculinityGender studiesOrder (exchange)MasculinityQueen (butterfly)Political scienceSociologySpace (punctuation)Political economyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

W hen I entered Queen’s Park, the provincial legislature in Ontario, Canada, I sought to uncover, contextualize, and analyze what political workers do and why, in order to better understand the production of government. Not long after I started fieldwork, during an informal discussion but one that took place in the mythically sacrosanct space of the legislative chamber, a young male Conservative staffer encouraged a Liberal counterpart to decorate his new motorcycle helmet with a sticker proclaiming “Show me your tits, bitch!” This sort of misogyny, in combination with more subtle daily examples of andro-centrism, made it clear that gender and, in particular, variants of hegemonic masculinity were central to the production of government and what political workers do and why. I learned very quickly that I would need to grapple with the relationships between patriarchy and political labor in order to thoroughly understand government. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.016
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207