Bibliographic record
Abstract
is thesis is the conclusion of an experiential research project on Montreal street posters.ese posters are a primary means of communication at the direct pedestrian level and they are a means through which people literally write their experiences on the built environment, narrating the story of the city.Based on an iconological method of investigation, this thesis reveals that in the historic Red Light district of Montreal, street posters author a history of marginality and conflict.ey are bound in analogy, where the history of the street posters parallels the history of prostitution and marginalization in the district.is relationship transcends analogy, however, and in many ways street posters, prostitution, and other unwanted behaviours have become one united problem in the eyes of the city.Called immoral, sinful, or just plain dirty; street posters, prostitutes, architecture and other marginalized individuals in the area have been framed as disgusting. is is not to say that these posters, places or people are in fact disgusting;it is to say that they are treated this way.e disgust that has shaped this neighbourhood and the existence of street posters has done nothing but keep individuals and businesses trapped in marginalization.Subsequently, laws based in disgust have been written to control street posters.Serving as a form of camouflage and social control, obscuring the city's action, inaction and motivations; these laws intended to control the "disgusting" posters merely penalize a vibrant art form for problems, which might be concurrent, but may have no direct relationship with the medium.individuals for their guidance and support.First, Dr.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.011 |
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".