Bibliographic record
Abstract
p r e f a c e o n t h e h u n d r e d t h a n n i v e r s a ry of women's suffrage in Ontario, it may be difficult to imagine a time when women could not hold public office, let alone vote.In 2013, Ontario elected its first female premier, Kathleen Wynne.Though gender parity in government is still far off, and sexist, homophobic, and misogynistic remarks plague female candidates and elected officials, Wynne is not alone.Ontario's New Demo cratic Party leader, Andrea Horwath; Mississauga's longest-serving mayor, Hazel McCallion; Six Nations of the Grand River's chief, G. Ava Hill; Conservative senator Salma Ataullahjan; former school board trustee, city councillor, and federal MP Olivia Chow; and Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell have also made headlines, crafted policy, and served their communities in recent years.On election day, hundreds of thousands of female voters make electoral choices they hope will produce prosperous, just, healthy, and safe communities.Others, disillusioned or indifferent, avoid voting altogether.Beyond the vote, women use many tools to address and rectify inequality and injustice: art, social media, boycotts, marches, petitions, charitable or non-governmental agency work, sit-ins, strikes, research and writing, hunger strikes, and civil disobedience.All of these acts -even the choice to be apathetic -are at least the partial legacy of the Ontario suffrage movement, a fivedecade-long campaign from the 1870s to 1917 in which women fought for the same political rights as men.On 12 April 1917, Ontario became the fifth province to grant women the right to vote.Beginning in the 1870s, its suffrage movement emerged amid the vibrant international mobilization of women who sought political representation as a means to improve their rights and to assert influence in social, economic, and
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.554 | 0.334 |
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".