Has the Recognition, Celebration and Actions of International Women's Day Inspired Equality? (Part 2 Q&A)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first International Women's Day (IWD) was observed on March 19, 1911 in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. More than one million women and men showed their support of women by participating in public events. In 1977, following the long-standing movements for women to participate equally in society, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed a day for women's rights and international peace. Following the United Nations' lead, Canada chose March 8 as IWD and it has grown to become a global day of recognition, celebration and action. In many countries it is an official holiday. In Canada, more than 40 events will be held this year.Last year, organizations and individuals around the world supported the Pledge for Parity campaign and committed to help women and girls achieve their ambitions; challenge conscious and unconscious bias, particularly against indigenous people and people of colour; call for gender-balanced leadership; value women and men's contributions equally; and create inclusive cultures. The 2017 IWD campaign slogan is Be Bold for Change and it is hoped that women, men and non-binary people will join forces to create influence and take bold pragmatic action to accelerate gender parity. However, the World Economic Forum predicts the gender gap won't close entirely until the next century. The speakers will offer their thoughts on what it may take to close that gap sooner rather than later. Speakers: Glenda Bonifacio and Caroline Hodes Dr. Glenda Bonifacio joined the University of Lethbridge Department of Women & Gender Studies in 2005 and holds a BA in Social Sciences major in Political Science (magna cum laude, University of the Philippines); MA in Asian Studies (University of the Philippines); and a Ph.D. from the School of History and Politics, University of Wollongong, Australia. In 2015, Dr. Bonifacio was selected as one of the 100 most influential Filipina women in the World in the innovator and thought leader category. The award by the Filipina Women's Network (FWN) recognizes women who have broken new ground in the global workplace and has improved the lives of others.Dr. Caroline Hodes received her PhD from York University in 2013 and joined the University of Lethbridge Department of Women & Gender Studies in 2015. Prior to her appointment in Lethbridge she taught at the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University in Kingston and in Sociology at Trent University's Oshawa campus. Dr. Hodes research interests include human rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian and US feminist constitutionalism, and she has recently won a ULRF grant to fund her current work on representations of the body in Charter equality rights and Aboriginal rights litigation Moderator: Bev Muendel-Atherstone Date: Thursday, March 9, 2017 Time: Noon - 1:30 PM (30 minutes each for presentation, lunch and Q & A) Location: Country Kitchen Catering (lower level of The Keg) 1715 Mayor Magrath Dr. S Cost:$12.00 (includes lunch) or $2.00 (includes coffee/tea)
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.140 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".