We Were There: An Archive of Activisms to Counter an Erasure of History on International Women’s Day in Vancouver, 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is based on a Facebook post I wrote and posted March 8, 2023, about the erasure of the history of International Women’s Day (IWD) movement organizing in Vancouver. I’ve transformed it from a rant among Facebook friends to a first-person point-of-view article. For me, IWD has always been a day about reflecting on the struggles of our movements; this year, the need to look back was made more urgent by shit that unfolded with dangerous consequences a few days before March 8, when news media proclaimed the 2023 march as the “first-ever.” Even after the media learned it had printed untruths that erased the existence of the Vancouver women’s movement, those stories remained online, uncorrected. An erasure of the women’s movement in Vancouver, no matter how unintended, is now official on-record history. Easily Google-able.[1] [1]At the time of writing this updated article, those stories have still not been corrected, despite outcries by many women since March 8, 2023.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".