Governmentality: A Theoretical Evaluation of Supervised Injection Sites and Consequent Police Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay looks to present governmentality as a theoretical framework through which to evaluate supervised injection sites (SIS) as a ‘political technology’ and police as extensions of this ‘technology’. Firstly, I will discuss how SIS arose under discourses of ‘public health’ and ‘harm reduction’ to fit varying political ideologies as a technology to cleanse public spaces of ‘disorderly’ drug use, thus safeguarding the urban environment as an attractive, civil and commercial space. Despite saving lives and meeting the unique needs of injection drug users, SIS can be understood as spaces of exclusion, immediately linking people to a marginalised population. Secondly, I will present the ways in which SIS can be contextualized as a powerful tool of surveillance and discipline, imposing the ‘responsibilization’ of individuals’ drug use and lifestyle habits, construing drug users as requiring surveillance and discipline to successfully conform to certain ‘acceptable’ behavioural traits. Lastly, once again through the lens of governmentality, I will demonstrate that police practises ironically work in opposition to the aim of SIS as a technology of control as they often deter drug users from frequenting SIS. Although governmentality can be philosophically conceptualized as an infringement on human freedom, in this instance, police practises need to be evaluated to increase their role in promoting SIS use. In light of the national health crisis in Canada, pertaining to injection drug use, if government control, surveillance and discipline results in the saving of thousands of lives, then in this occasion it is useful and necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".