Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on how popular discourses of problem gambling construct gendered and racialized identities in central British Columbia, a region producing the highest bingo revenues in the province. It explores how bingo discourses emerge as a symbolic resource within a socio-economic context imbued with a colonial legacy of racialized power relations. The goal is to illuminate, through the application of critical discourse methods, how these discourses legitimate local regimes of power through the pathologizing processes that result in stigmatizing children and women as “bingo orphans,” “bingo bags” and “bingo addicts.” Resume: Cette etude se concentre sur les discours populaires des problemes de dependance au jeu en Colombie-Britannique centrale, region qui produit les plus hauts taux de revenus de bingo dans la province, et analyse comment ces discours construisent des identites raciales et de genre. Elle explore comment ces discours s’averent des ressources symboliques qui emergent d’un contexte socio-economique impregne de l’heritage colonial et des relations de pouvoir racialisees. L’objectif est d’eclairer, par des methodes critiques d’analyse, comment ces discours legitiment des regimes locaux de pouvoir qui, par des procedes pathologisants, stigmatisent les enfants et les femmes comme des « orphelins du bingo », des « sacs de bingo » et des « dependants du bingo ».
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".