When Symbols Clash: Legitimacy, Legality and the 2010 Winter Olympics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In February 2010, the Olympics descended on Vancouver, British Columbia. Between athletes competing for gold and a provincial venue with the highest poverty rate in Canada, a clash of symbols arose: those deemed legitimate by the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee (VANOC) and those deemed illegitimate. The Games not only transformed the city's landscape, municipal laws, infrastructure, and social relations but also resulted in the concurrent transformation of the city's visual culture. As an explicit tactic, Aboriginal; antipoverty; environmental; anarchist; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activists employed countersymbols to disrupt VANOC's plans. Through qualitative discourse analysis of photos and visual imagery, this article addresses social, historical, political, and economic issues tied to this clash of symbols, including the use of Aboriginal cultures in representations of Canadian nationalism; infringements upon civil liberties and freedom of speech that resulted from surveillance of activists and constraints to the arts; and visual counter-discourse produced by activists through demonstrations, posters, and art.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".