“The personal is political!”: exploring the limits of Canada’s feminist international assistance policy under occupation and blockade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The personal is political!” This now infamous second-wave feminist slogan highlighted the connections between everyday personal experiences to larger social and political structures. As Enloe ([1990]. Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. University of California Press) reminds us, the personal is political, but the personal is also international and, the international is personal. To this end, in 2015, Justin Trudeau took Canadian politics by storm with a platform promising change and a commitment to make Canadian international assistance explicitly “feminist”. Feminist scholars have long argued that understanding gender inequality requires more than targeted projects, programs, and interventions; it requires a fundamental shift in the way we understand systems of power shaping our complex international political systems (Tiessen, [2007]. Everywhere/nowhere: Gender mainstreaming in development agencies. Kumarian Press). Despite this, the way in which this commitment has been applied by the Trudeau Government is another question altogether. Using Ferguson’s ([1994]. The anti-politics machine. University of Minnesota) concepts of the “anti-politics machine”, this article explores Canada’s FIAP using the case study of Canadian international assistance in Gaza. It concludes that despite having an international assistance policy predicated on feminist values, Canadian development and humanitarian initiatives in Gaza are scrubbed of political dimensions and therefore utterly detached from the reality of the occupation and blockade and the subsequent impact on the lives of women and girls.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.074 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".