Legitimate Deviance and Social Class: Bar Behaviour During Grey Cup Week
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is commonly known that there are times when and places where widespread deviant behaviour is socially sanctioned and highly tolerated, when, it may be said, deviant behaviour is legitimate. During periods of legitimate deviance a Out is from the demands of accountability and conformity, social control is relaxed, and almost anything goes. Such Time Outs are often called by ceremonial arrangement and take the form of ritualistic festivals, fiestas, celebrations, parties, and the like. Such rituals are theorized to provide controlled settings for the release of social tensions and to facilitate community integration and solidarity. These theoretical propositions are examined by a replication of Ossenberg's (1969) study of Calgary Stampede festivities. A study of the week-long urban festival surrounding the Grey Cup in Hamilton, Ontario was conducted. Festival participation was measured by participant observation of behavior in downtown drinking establishments. As with the Calgary Stampede, it was found that the Grey Cup festival was mostly a middle-class binge with limited participation by persons characterized as upper- or working-class. This finding does not support the theorized community integration and increased solidarity function of urban festivals. Implications regarding the political and business sponsorship of the Grey Cup and other urban festivals is examined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".