STATE POLICY IN THE FIELD OF OVERCOMING GENDER INEQUALITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the methodology of implementing gender policy, which is one of the main factors in achieving democracy. It is substantiated that the analysis of the world political practice and the regulatory framework of states showed that gender policy is perceived by the leadership of countries as an important direction of state activity, which is implemented with the aim of achieving a high political and legal status at the world level, striving to become a universally recognized democratic state. The national laws of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the USA and Canada, signed international agreements and the creation of special state structures entrusted with the function of gender policy implementation were considered. It has been proven that women are still underrepresented in parliaments, governing bodies and political parties in the region, although gender issues have entered public discourse and debate. It was established that the interests of women are rarely taken into account and acted upon. It is substantiated that the populist and illiberal turn in European politics caused negative consequences for the gender agenda. Therefore, the study of political representation of women remains timely and relevant.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".