Associations, Modernity and the Insider‐citizens of a Victorian Highwheel Bicycle Club
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The creation of a club, the recruitment of new members, and the subsequent pursuit of an association’s goals by its members present a succession of constitutive acts designed to advance a particular vision of citizenship. That vision may sometimes sit comfortably within the established state order, but quite often the activities of clubs are viewed by the state with suspicion, and may even be deemed subversive. The rights and obligations of an association’s members serve as a blueprint for the form of citizenship pursued, and they participate in the genealogy of citizenship through their efforts to construct particular forms of civic society. By requiring a formal act of membership, all associations are to a degree exclusionary, thus bestowing power and influence on club members. Non‐members are normally viewed as outsiders or as others, and members who fail to respect a club’s constitution may be dropped from the insider‐citizenship it represents. The Montreal Bicycle Club (MBC), formed in 1878, presents an illuminating example of how associations engage in acts of citizenship with its codes of conduct and hierarchies. Its members practiced a version of technological citizenship. MBC members asserted rights of use of the road in fierce competition with other road users, exerted political power through the elite Anglo circles of Montreal, and advocated the virtues of modern technology. Their highwheel bicycles were among the most visible modern artifacts on the streets. They were the first citizens to “go out for a spin”, and there was a distinctive spatiality to many of their riding activities. They present a category of modern citizens whose purpose was to construct a technologically advanced, but highly structured society according to their masculinist vision.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".