Debating Safe Injecting Sites in Vancouver's Inner City: Advocacy, Conservatism and Neoliberalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North America's first and only legal, supervised injection site is located in Vancouver and has been one of Canada's most controversial biomedical interventions. Emerging from a progressive harm reduction model, and adopted in many cities around the globe from Sydney to Paris, safe injection facilities are considered by many to be the hallmark of innovative programming for the urban poor. In Vancouver, an intense public debate resulted, focusing attention on addictions, the rights of drug users, and the politics of knowledge. Drawing on the work of Nikolas Rose and Michel Foucault, this ethnographic article suggests that the politics of activism and care that have emerged from the Insite controversy among scientists, researchers, and advocates are characterized by a neoliberal logic, which limits the full potential of this health care intervention. This article considers the specific ways in which scientists and advocates inadvertently adopted neoliberal techniques of governing and conservative politics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".