MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319544738 · doi:10.1017/s0829320100007006

Re-Configuring the Margins: Tracing the Regulatory Context of Ottawa Strip Clubs, 1974–2000

2002· article· fr· W2319544738 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Bruckert, Martin Dufresne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)PhilosophyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé En s'inspirant de la littérature sur la gouvernementalité, cette étude cherche à saisir la re-configuration du travail en marge du marché et de la moralité. En suivant l'évolution des clubs de «strip tease» à Ottawa de 1974 jusqu'en 2000, les auteurs expliquent comment des transformations du contexte discursif et des processus économique, légal et social de la modernité avancée re-constituent l'industrie et ses travailleuses. Les transformations d'une structure du travail organisée à partir du divertissement puis du service s'accompagnent d'une succession de stratégies de régulation incluant la contamination morale, la planification urbaine et la gestion de la santé. Les auteurs montrent que des questions de moralité, de responsabilité et de risque jouent dans le cadre de paramètres normatifs posés par les tribunaux. Dans ces débats et sous l'influence du néo-libéralisme, les travailleuses sont progressivement constituées comme des sujets éthiques auto-régulés. Or dans les marges, la «liberté» que confère ce statut n'en est pas moins contrainte et organisée par les discours et pratiques du droit, de la communauté et du travail.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et SociétéSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207