Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study situates the National Action Committee on the Status of Women's [NAC] activism and media strategies in relation to the emergence of neoliberal policy and political discourse at the federal level in Canada. The rise of neoliberal policies and political language during the 1980s and early 1990s in Canada created a new terrain on which political debates about women's issues entered into public culture. Consequently, women's organizations had to change advocacy strategies in order to participate in national political discourse and contest the terms on which women's issues were being framed. While this story has primarily been told as the beginning of the end of Canadian second wave feminism, my dissertation investigates how Canadian feminism did not decline or die, as news media reported, but instead was forced to change strategies and, in the process, re-organize the movement's shape, objectives and practice. My study uses qualitative, historical and discursive analysis to examine two sets of representations occurring around the NAC-sponsored federal leadership debates. The first set is drawn from representations of the organization's interests and strategies produced through their own materials, policies and media tactics. This approach facilitates analysis of the internal dynamics informing NAC's media strategy, so as to fully evince the organization's keen awareness of the potential opportunities and constraints for Canadian women presented by a shift to a neoliberal federal framework. The second set is constructed in the English-language news media around NAC's strategic media events in order to determine the ways in which the Canadian women's movement was being discussed and historicized in the mainstream news media.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".