The impacts of COVID-19 on women & marginalized groups: why a feminist human rights-based approach to recovery is vital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 crisis has been devastating for everyone, however, women are experiencing disproportionate economic, social, and health impacts. Using an intersectional gender lens, this qualitative research paper explores seven key areas in which women have been adversely affected in comparison to men, namely: the shouldering of unpaid care responsibilities, overrepresentation in frontline responses, weakening of economic security, increased gender-based violence (GBV), diminished sexual and reproductive health, financial devastation of the women’s sector and a growing digital divide. Due to pre-existing structural inequalities prior to the COVID-19 crisis, individuals who are racialized, immigrant, migrant or undocumented, disabled, low-income, or a part of the LGBTQ+ community have felt these burdens the most. By examining our current political economy, decisions made in past crises, and the economic benefits of gender equality, this paper discusses the unique window of opportunity the pandemic presents to correct past mistakes and commit to transformative social change. The paper argues that Canada’s COVID-19 recovery plan must be thoughtful and inclusive, prioritizing gender justice and economic and social rights for everyone. The paper concludes by providing various short-term policy solutions to aid in the mitigation of the pandemic's gendered effects, as well as an initial framework of seven potential policy areas in which to focus and allocate resources in the long term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".