MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047911915 · doi:10.3138/chr-2019-0037

Lady Smugglers and Lynx-Eyed Customs Agents: Gender, Morality, and Cross-Border Shopping in Detroit and Windsor

2020· article· en· W3047911915 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sarah Elvins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindsorClothingMiddle classAdvertisingLawCitizenshipMoralityPolitical scienceBusinessSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines popular attitudes towards cross-border shopping and smuggling in the Detroit-Windsor border region from 1900 to 1960. Reports of individuals attempting to fool border guards by failing to declare items, wearing multiple layers of clothing, or disguising new purchases as used reveal how shoppers felt entitled to goods and were not deterred by customs regulations. Middle-class families that might otherwise balk at breaking the law saw no problem with lying to border agents. This behaviour was highly gendered: women were characterized as naturally inclined to smuggle, given their love of shopping and inability to comprehend the law. Border guards were selective in their application of the law, and middle-class consumers generally had little to fear when they brought back purchases in excess of customs limits. Smuggling went both ways across the border. During the Second World War, Detroit residents flocked to Windsor to purchase meat and dairy products, while in the postwar period, Canadians more typically frequented American stores. This article offers a new way to think about consumer citizenship and how access to goods was assumed to be a right for people living on both sides of the border.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207