MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905482341 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1326

All About That Place: The Curious Case of Bingo Liberalisation in Brazil

2018· article· en· W2905482341 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toni Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityEntertainmentLanguage changeLiberalizationSociologySocialityPolitical scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207