MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048463788 · doi:10.3138/ctr.158.008

Extinguishing the “Temptation of Monetary Inducements”: The State Regulation and Stigmatization of Adult Entertainment Recruiters on Post-secondary Campuses in British Columbia

2014· article· en· W2048463788 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Becki Ross, Oralia Gómez-Ramírez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTemptationState (computer science)EntertainmentLawPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In this article, we explore the directive issued in August 2012 by the Minister of Advanced Education in British Columbia to ban “aggressive” adult entertainment recruiters from campus job fairs. We argue that the Liberal minister’s move to differentiate “appropriate” and “safe” employment from the purportedly perilous behaviour intrinsic to “exotic dancing” deflects attention from the economic crisis facing most post-secondary students. We contend that exotic dancing is being used as a convenient scapegoat, a bottomless container for fear and anxiety eminently exploitable in the service of moral governance masquerading as state advocacy. Some students already work in the sex industry, including the world of commercial burlesque. The minister’s message to university and college presidents in British Columbia reads as a cynical, desperate ploy a) to exploit fear for political gain, and b) to obfuscate the grave, deepening crush of debt shouldered by post-secondary students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207