Intersectionality, NGOs and executives: who has which minister’s ear?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To what extent do the most powerful political office-holders engage with extra-parliamentary representatives from the most marginalised groups? To what extent and how are these relationships intersectional? In order to answer these questions, this article offers a novel analysis of over 78,000 UK government ministerial meetings and 293 equalities organisations. The findings show that white male ministers engage least with equalities organisations, and minoritised women engage most, even when controlling for additional factors. Additionally, women’s organisations enjoy far greater access than those focused on race, or those led by and for intersectionally marginalised groups. This matters because NGOs play a critical role in constituting the interests of marginalised groups: a necessary pre-condition for the substantive parliamentary representation of those interests. The relationship is particularly important in relation to executives, where the small number of roles offers limited opportunities for descriptive representation, but exceptional powers of substantive representation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it