Slipping the Line: The Embodied and Affective Materiality of Gang Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In both popular and academic accounts, one of the defining features of gangs is their strong attachment to turf-the home territory under the control of a gang.However, the concept of gang territory often remains narrowly defined as a static and bounded region claimed, defended, and controlled by gang members; a view that fails to account for versions of space beyond settler colonial models.In contrast, this dissertation uses a new materialist lens to attend to the ways gang territories are made, maintained, and disrupted through the daily practices of a variety of actors.I draw on multi-sited qualitative fieldwork in Winnipeg, Manitoba, a city referred to as the gang capital of Canada.Through interviews with gang and non-gang-affiliated residents, police, and administrators working or living within gang territories, I show that gang territories are made material through various embodied practices that enact these spaces in affective, emergent, mobile, and multiple forms.I argue that central to the materialization of gang territories are embodied regularities that contribute to the multiplicity and mobility of boundaries, to gang space that takes shape as new mobilities and conditions of the body, and as territory that spatializes as the racialized body.This project expands gang research by highlighting gang behaviours and processes outside the scope of criminal enterprise, and by showing territorialization as a process that implicates a broad range of actors.Recognizing the role of multiple actors encourages a relational ethics of accountability between bodies, practices, and place that challenges the often-naturalized connections between race, space, and crime.Understanding gang space as enacted through embodied material practices provides an alternative way to think through, trace, and disrupt these associations.v 7.6 Future Considerations .............
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".