Everything to offer or something to prove? : discourse of women entrepreneurship policy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to explore how government policies position female entrepreneurs in \nCanada in order to understand and positively impact inclusive women entrepreneurship policy \nreform in Canada. By using discourse analysis with a post-structuralist feminist theory \ntheoretical framework, I consider how language is formed in such a way that the discourse of \nwomen’s entrepreneurship, in the context of the Government of Canada women entrepreneurship \npolicy, is reinforcing traditional gender roles. As a data source, I used the publicly available, \nwebsite-based text from the WES Ecosystem Fund as well as the website-based text of the 53 \nfunded programs/agencies of the WES Ecosystem Fund. Three main discourses emerged from \nmy research. In analyzing the various texts, I conclude that the women entrepreneurship strategy \naligns with the classic liberal feminist approach whereas other branches of the government have \nevolved to a more social feminist approach. I suggest that the post structuralist stance has been \ncritical to developing feminist advancements, which challenge the notion of female essentialism \nand assumptions of shared subordination arising from a homogeneous biological identity and \nsocio-economic positioning. I have shown that the focus on performance and growth ignores \nissues on gender equality and gender/power relations even in a country that refers to itself as a \nfeminist government. My research supports the theoretical finding by other researchers that the \ndogged focus on providing entrepreneurship training to women with the hope that more women \nwill become entrepreneurs is inadvertently creating bigger barriers by “othering” a woman as \nsomeone that needs to be fixed before she can become an entrepreneur. The wording found in the \nWomen Entrepreneurship Strategy Ecosystem Fund and the corresponding funded programs, \nfrom a post structuralist feminist theory lens, put women in a subordinate position to men and \nthereby risk sustaining a male norm.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.071 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".