Women Plan Toronto (1985 - 2000) and Toronto Womenâs City Alliance (2004 - and struggling on): Experiences and Lessons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the history, analysis and prospects for women’s capacity to engender the planning process in Toronto. It recounts the origins and actions of Women Plan Toronto in the early 1980s to the Toronto Women’s City Alliance campaigns, setting this pioneering work against today’s cut-backs of transit, child care, and social housing and efforts to establish a Women’s Equalities Office. The two women's groups have been struggling to eliminate ongoing silencing, discrimination, inadequate safety for women and girls and violence against them. They continue to strive for recognition of the importance and implications of care giving and domestic responsibilities which still burden women far more than men. This inequality renders women in general but particularly single parent and minority women poorer, more vulnerable, disempowered and voiceless. To address these issues gender implications need to be systematically taken into account in budgeting, planning, designing, servicing and administering a City. The article tells of the strategies, obstacles, successes and failures of women's ongoing efforts in Toronto.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".