'Is Canada's Prime Minister merely a Facebook feminist': Evaluating the gender sensitivity of Canada's Parliament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presented at the ECPG (European Conference on Politics and Gender) in Lausanne, Switzerland (June, 2017). \n\nCanada ranks 64 of 193 countries (IPU, 2016) with women making up 26 percent of its members of parliament. Upon winning the 2015 general election Canada’s new Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau made international headlines by appointing the nation’s first federal sex-balanced cabinet; when asked ‘why’ he replied ‘because it’s 2015’, which went on to become the widely trending #BecauseIts2015 and Facebook meme. Trudeau soon declared himself a feminist and his as the party for feminists. Yet Canada’s parliament may not be what it appears. For example, Trudeau’s feminist government recently rejected a private members’ bill designed to incentivize parties to run more women candidates. The media and activists have referred to the bill as the first piece of feminist legislation to be introduced in the current Parliament. Trudeau missed the vote and the Status of Woman minister along with 78 percent of the Liberal caucus voted to defeat Bill C-237 when it came forward after second reading. After a year in office, the Trudeau government continues to describe itself as feminist, but has thus far done little to advance policies that would lead to gender equity. This paper uses interviews with Canadian MPs to explore the concept “gender sensitive parliaments” using Canada as an example of the tension between rhetoric, symbolism, and legislative action.
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 | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; 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".