Gender Equality in Canada through the Prism of Political Party Documentation and Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter critically examines gender equality within Canadian party politics, with a specific focus on six principal political entities: the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, the Green Party of Canada, and the People’s Party of Canada. It investigates the extent to which these parties address women’s rights and gender equality within their respective party documentation and programmatic agendas. Utilizing a comparative analytical approach, it seeks to elucidate both convergences and divergences in how Canadian political parties address gender equality concerns. To this end, a lexicometric analysis was employed to quantify the occurrence of terms such as ‘woman’, ‘female’, and ‘gender’ in party documentation. Additionally, qualitative methodologies were applied to contextualize the utilization of such terminology. Mirroring patterns observed in other countries, left-leaning and liberal parties are expected to demonstrate greater attentiveness to women’s rights and gender equality issues in their official documents compared to their conservative counterparts. However, this pattern primarily applies to the constitutions of Canadian parties. Regarding the programmatic space, there is a broad consensus encompassing the majority of Canadian parties. It is only questioned by the People’s Party of Canada. An interesting position is also held by the Bloc Québécois, which, despite supporting feminist demands, as a separatist party, pays less attention to gender equality. The prominence of concerns regarding Indigenous women in the agendas of most Canadian parties underscores the progression of Canadian feminism.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".