What’s New about Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy and Why ‘More of the Same’ Matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessments of Canada’s 2017 Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) are mixed. There is widespread enthusiasm for the boldness of the policy, the innovation in represents (especially in its use of the language of feminism) and its commitment to increased funding and programmatic commitments to gender equality and women’s empowerment. Critical reviews of the policy also highlight some of its limitations in terms of missed opportunities to consider broader, intersectional feminist realities, lack of clarity in approach or definitions, and insufficient translation into practice and resource allocations. The innovations and limitations of the FIAP are examined here with an additional reflection on the implications of the focus on the novelty of this policy. An empirical study of the references to the policy’s innovation highlight several elements of ‘more of the same’ in terms of renewed gender mainstreaming commitments as well as missed opportunities. The argument advanced in this paper is that ‘more of the same’ is a double-barrelled assessment reflecting the possibilities it presents for broadening and deepening long-standing Canadian commitments to gender equality as well as challenges related to ongoing limitations and weaknesses. In the longer-term trajectory of Canadian commitments to gender equality, the FIAP offers an important next step – a step that reflects, overall, ‘more of the same’ rather than the innovative feminist vision it purports to be.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".