MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082458531 · doi:10.1111/ciso.12333

The Dramatic Losses of Brazil: City‐Staging, Spectacular Security, and the Problem of Sex Tourism during the 2014 World Cup in Natal

2020· article· en· W3082458531 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Eve Carrier‐Moisan

Bibliographic record

VenueCity & Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismLegitimacyState (computer science)Opposition (politics)Gender studiesCorporate governancePolitical scienceSociologyLawPoliticsManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Brazil, the advent of several mega‐sporting events—most notably the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Rio Olympics—has led to various state practices of city‐staging. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted in Natal during the 2014 World Cup, I examine the ways in which the problem of sex tourism became particularly prominent for Natal’s image, including how the World Cup exacerbated already existing state crackdowns on sex tourism and practices of city‐staging and spectacular security. I also examine how—beside the predictable alliances of conservative and church groups with the state—progressive feminists and leftist activists aligned themselves with the state in their opposition to sex tourism and reinforced, perhaps inadvertently, practices of spectacular security and city‐staging. These practices materialized in ways that provided further legitimacy to the invisibilization of sex workers from tourist sites, who were seen as at odds with the image of a world‐class, safe, family‐friendly city. While the nation mourned the spectacular defeat of the Brazilian soccer team, sex workers, too, lost dramatically during the World Cup, through new forms of sexual governance that targeted sex tourism.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCity & SocietySame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207