Institutions, Ideas, Women and Gender: New Directions in Canadian Foreign Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the relationship between the representation of women in the Canadian foreign policy machinery and the sorts of policies promoted by the Canadian government. We note that there are few women in the top echelons of Canadian foreign policy. We also show how Canadian foreign policy may be viewed as somehow more feminine than the policy of other states. Some could say that the lack of women at the upper levels has not stopped Canada from adopting gender sensitive policies; however, we suggest that the promotion of gender equality is not the same as the achievement of gender equality. Canada's rhetoric is not borne out in results, particularly when we examine attempts at achieving gender equality at home. Ultimately we argue that women and gender must be meaningfully brought into Canadian foreign policy and we offer some suggestions as to how this can be achieved.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".