The Rise and Decline of Women’s Policy Machinery in British Columbia and New South Wales: A Comparative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of the institutional trajectories traced by women’s policy agencies within government in the province of British Columbia in Canada and in the state of New South Wales in Australia. In both cases, a period during which the principal women’s policy agency took the form of a free-standing government Ministry was followed by a period during which that Ministry – along with an array of women’s policy agencies located elsewhere in government – was dismantled. The partisan complexion of the governments undertaking these initiatives has been quite different in the two cases, and presents an apparent paradox. In British Columbia, the Ministry of Women’s Equality was established by the social democratic New Democratic Party that took office in 1991, and was eliminated in 2001 by the newly-elected provincial Liberal government as part of a wider set of neoliberal reforms. In New South Wales, by contrast, the Ministry for the Status and Advancement of Women was established in 1995 by a government of the right- the Coalition government led by John Fahey- but was dismantled in 2004 by an Australian Labor Party government led by Carr. The paper explores various aspects of these different patterns across the cases, and provides an assessment of their implications for the interests of diverse groups of women. I.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".