Gender Based Analysis+ in Alberta’s big cities: the effects on local organizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calgary and Edmonton have each launched strategies and initiatives to incorporate Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) processes into their policy development in the last few years. Do these plans make a difference to grassroots organizers and non-profits working toward equity in these communities? Through seventeen semi-structured interviews with members of city administration, front line workers, grassroots organizers and heads of various non-profits, this thesis works to develop a better understanding of how and if municipal strategies have an impact on local organizing. The majority of research on GBA+ examines the challenges of implementing GBA+ policy processes and the subsequent outcomes in international or Canadian federal contexts. This thesis will address gaps by focusing on gender-mainstreaming approaches in the municipalities of Calgary and Edmonton, and the impacts on local organizers outside of administration. Participants shared experiences of navigating bureaucratic structures to affect change and GBA+’s limited capacity for radical change. Furthermore, participants discussed the influence of private and public funding on equity-related organizing and links to extractive industries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".