MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085884507 · doi:10.1111/1467-6443.00161

Regulating Heterosocial Space: Sexual Politics in the Early Twentieth Century

2002· article· en· W2085884507 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alan Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Historical Sociology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualNarrativeSpace (punctuation)PoliticsCommissionSociologyGender studiesCriminologyAestheticsPolitical scienceArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay proposes a reading of the vice commission reports of the early 20th century USA and Canada as exemplifying projects to regulate ‘heterosocial space’. ‘Heterosocial space’ refers to the shifting and changing sites where young women and men come into contact and where transactions with potentially sexual dimensions arise or which others define in sexualized terms. ‘Space’ not only has a spatial, but also a temporal dimension exemplified in deep anxieties about the rapid expansion of the cities and life on street‐corners after dark. The city was constituted as an arena of dispersed agencies of surveillance; a myriad of sites, including dance, halls, movie houses, ice cream parlors and skating rinks; department stores and city parks, which evaded attempts at systematic disciplinary supervision. Attention is paid to the closely textured interaction between official bodies and private agencies of moralization whose attempts at regulating heterosocial life involved an expansion of regulatory activities which were often ill‐coordinated and conflictual. In the struggle between respectability and unrespectability, traditional notions of respectability were persistently submerged and outflanked. The vice reports can also be read as metaphorical narratives, such that prostitution can be seen as embracing multiple referents shifting from concern with ‘commercial vice’ to ‘casual prostitution’, and encompassing ideas of disease, disorder and transgression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations38
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Historical SociologySame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207