MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145727075 · doi:10.11575/prism/31420

Informing a Government of Alberta Action Plan to Engage Men and Boys to Stop Violence Against Women

2015· article· en· W3145727075 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Lana Wells, Elizabeth Dozois, Deinera Exner‐Cortens, M. Lynne Cooper, Elena Esina, Ken Froese, Sophia Boutillier

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMax Bell Foundation
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Action (physics)Political scienceAction planPsychologyCriminologyPublic relationsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At this moment in Alberta, Canada, we all have an opportunity to better support men and boys to play a positive role in the movement to end violence against women. For this reason, we have proposed recommendations specific to the Government of Alberta to inform the development of their Action Plan to positively engage men and boys to advance gender equality and promote healthy masculinities in order to stop violence against women. However, we envision this report as an interim strategy because once men have been invited into the movement in positive ways and they become true allies and leaders in stopping violence against women, they can then be included in a more general strategy to engage all genders in violence prevention. In this sense, engaging men and boys is a bit like preferential hiring or reverse discrimination policies – that is, something that is needed for a period of time to redress a particular oversight or injustice, but is relinquished once that issue has been addressed. As a result, this report was written with the following assumptions in mind: • That the work with men and boys must be done in partnership with women’s organizations. All genders must be engaged to achieve gender equality and stop violence against women. • Funds must not be taken away or diverted from existing women’s organizations in order to advance an engaging men and boys strategy. New funds and resources must be found. • Violence against women and girls is a human rights violation. As such, this work must be informed by a human rights based approach in order to empower all genders to claim their rights and to ensure accountability of individuals and institutions who are responsible for respecting, protecting and fulfilling rights. • Experiences of masculinity are affected by class, location, ethnicity, cultural background, sexuality and many other factors. We need to reflect this intersectionality in our analysis, funding, program design and evaluation strategies. • We live in a patriarchy that reinforces structural inequities and reinforces violence against women. We therefore must work towards dismantling the existing structures and norms that breed men’s sense of entitlement and maintain their privilege, power and control over women. • Gender equality is in the best interest of everyone. This report is written with the intention of: 1) changing the discourse on men and boys from perpetrators to allies and violence disrupters: 2) promoting the inclusion of men and boys in efforts from which they have been largely absent, and 3) promoting the use of research and evidence to inform our violence prevention approach. Shift believes that working with men and boys can have a positive, transformative impact, not only on the lives of women and girls, but also on the lives of men and boys. Shift is committed to advancing this area of research and invites you to contact us to continue the dialogue and learning. Lana Wells, Brenda Strafford Chair in the Prevention of Domestic Violence, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary (lmwells@ucalgary.ca)

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207