Leisure, Liquor and Control: Negotiating recreation in the beverage rooms of post‐prohibition Ontario, 1927–1939
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the First World War, the saloon had been the traditional site of the blending of alcohol consumption and other leisure activities, much to the dismay of temperance and rational recreation reformers. Theoretically, by banishing the saloon, legislated prohibition severed that connection, creating the opportunity for the relationship between drinking and other leisure activities to be reconceptualised. The end of prohibition in Ontario, Canada, ushered in a new era of government liquor control under the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). These liquor control efforts sought to balance the imperative of social order with the demands of the consumer. Public drinking after 1934 was permitted only in the beverage rooms and dining rooms of Standard Hotels, and few other recreational activities could accompany them. In licensed hotels, gaming, gambling, music, and dancing were all scrutinised and either banned or closely monitored. The LCBO enforced a vision of drinking that reiterated a vision of the public drinking space as a community meeting place, while simultaneously separating immoderate drinking from other forms of recreation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".