Canada's GBA+ framework in a (post)pandemic world: Issues, tensions and paths forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article traces the theoretical foundations, evolution, and limitations of Gender‐Based Analysis Plus (GBA+), which is the Government of Canada's primary framework for attending to diversity and inclusion in public policy. We argue that GBA+ is, in its current form, inadequate to guide ambitious and transformative policy in the post‐pandemic years given four interlocking issues: (1) a weak integration of intersectionality; (2) insufficient attention to the power structures and socio‐political context undergirding social relations and policymaking; (3) an instrumental understanding of policy; and (4) a misreading of identity. Drawing on feminist, intersectional and post‐structuralist methods, we adjust the GBA+ framework with the aim of addressing the conceptual shortcomings identified in our analysis. Ultimately, we demonstrate how a more explicit engagement with notions of intersectionality, power and policy's instrumental and productive aspects can enrich the ways we think about public policy as both a mechanism and a venue for transformative change.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".