The Same as a Private Home?: Social Clubs, Public Drinking, and Liquor Control in Ontario, 1934–1944
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Along with regulating the sales of liquor in provincial stores, overseeing the manufacture of alcohol, and inspecting the public drinking establishments in the province, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario issued beverage licences to private clubs. This paper examines the challenges of regulating the activities of drinkers in semi-private spaces and asks how the lcbo applied the notion of public space to establishments that were not entirely public. The legislation permitting drinking in clubs appears to have been based upon a narrow idea of the elite social club. The administrators of the board quickly found that the residents of the province saw socialization in a variety of forms. In keeping with its regulatory activities in the public drinking establishments, the lcbo attempted to address individual challenges and problems based upon the unique characteristics of each club. It assessed club management, the type of clientele, and the activities of the club. It then evaluated whether certain transgressions or special dispensations would present a challenge to social order. In effect, the nuanced evaluation and careful application of the rules characterized the regulation of semi-private drinking in the province of Ontario. The article argues that, in contrast to Habermas’s idea that the development of a public sphere resulted in freer public discussion and debate, in the lcbo regulatory activities, the term public implied an added responsibility to behave in certain constrained ways. At least when having a drink. En plus de réglementer la vente d’alcool dans les magasins provinciaux, superviser sa production et inspecter les débits de boisson publics dans la province, la Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) a émis des permis de boisson aux clubs privés. Cet article examine les défis posés par la régulation de l’activité des buveurs au sein d’espaces semi-privés et se demande comment la LCBO a appliqué la notion d’espace public aux établissements qui n’étaient pas de nature entièrement privée. La loi autorisant la consommation d’alcool dans les clubs semble s’être basée sur une conception étroite des clubs sociaux élitistes. Les administrateurs de la LCBO se sont rapidement aperçus que les résidents de la province concevaient la socialisation sur toute une variété de modes. Conformément à ses activités régulatrices dans les débits de boisson publics, la LCBO a tenté de répondre aux défis et problèmes individuels en fonction des singularités de chaque club. Elle a tenu compte de la gestion du club, de son type de clientèle et de ses activités. Elle a ensuite évalué si certaines transgressions ou dérogations spéciales pose-raient un défi à l’ordre social. Dans les faits, la régulation de la consommation d’alcool semi-privée en Ontario s’est caractérisée par une évaluation nuancée et une application prudente de la réglementation. L’article soutient que, à l’encontre de l’idée habermassienne voulant que le développement d’une sphère publique se traduise par une libération de la parole publique et du débat, suivant les activités régulatrices de la LCBO, le terme « public » sous-entendait la responsabilité supplémentaire d’adopter un comportement modéré. Du moins, quand on avait un verre à la main.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".