All About That Place: The Curious Case of Bingo Liberalisation in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bingo is a form of gaming that is often associated with good works, social services, low stakes entertainment, and working-class sociality. In many parts of the world bingo halls are the province of charities, veterans’ clubs, older women, and families: But not in Brazil. Commercial bingo grew rapidly in Brazil during a decade of legality that ended in 2004. Legal bingo halls employed tens of thousands of people and the game was widely played by middle-class and well-educated Brazilians as well as older working-class women and men. However, the game, or more precisely the bingo halls in which it was played, came to be regarded as laundries for dirty money, sources of corruption of public powers, and risks to the security of urban neighbourhoods. Using contextualised socio-legal analysis of the places that Brazilian bingo halls became and their place in Brazilian society, this article suggests that it may be insightful to look to the place of Brazil in a globalizing world to understand why Brazilian law and regulation failed to institutionalise the commercial bingo hall as a site of clean, safe “fun,” to contain the risks it posed, and to ensure the continuity of bingo as a legal leisure practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".