MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226337796 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-14849

“If You Don't Have Community, You Fucking Drown In It:” The Governing Logics of Sex Work and Community in Northeastern Ontario

2022· dissertation· en· W4226337796 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindy Van Vliet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityCanadiana.org
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismGovernmentalityResistance (ecology)SociologyGender studiesLiberalismPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this dissertation I explore the complex relationship between the symbols and practices of community and sex work in Northeastern Ontario (NEO).Moving beyond a dichotomous understanding of communities as entirely sites of repression or resistance, I instead focus on how two governing logics, settler colonialism and late liberalism, frame sex workers' relationship with, labour within, and struggles against the rationalities of community in NEO.Drawing on the work of settler colonial theorists ( Rifkin 2013; Simpson 2016), community studies (Joseph 2002; Defillipis et al. 2006), feminist literature (Federici 2010; McKee 2011; Roy 2017; Nunn 2019), and sex work studies (Hunt 2016; Kaye 2017; Mac and Smith 2018; Pratt 2015) I examine the complex web that sex working subjects are produced within, resist, and mediate in NEO.While at its face, this dissertation explores the relationship between communities and sex working subjects in Northeastern Ontario; a series of broader questions underlie the study: How are the logics and practices of settler colonialism and late liberalism produced and reproduced in the everyday interactions of subjects in colonial spaces?What are the tensions around community "inclusion" and "exclusion," and what dangers do both control strategies create for oppressed subjects?What does resistance look like if subjects are 'governed through, not in spite of," their freedom (Rose 2000)?How can we understand resistance, and the symbols and practices of community, outside of the dichotomy of cooptation or liberation?Through an exploration of these underlying questions, I argue against theories of governmentality and settler colonialism that adopt "totalizing views of power" (McKee 2011, 1).Instead, I work to make visible how sex working participants in NEO perform alternatives through the performance of responsibilization, acts of space reclamation, and informal community networks (McKee 2011, 1; see also Nunn 2019; Rifkin 2013; Roy 2017).In doing so, I aim to show the "disorderliness of governing" by exploring how sex workers in NEO experience their subjection and the processes of governance (Love, Wilton, and DeVerteiul 2012) and attend to the counter-hegemonic ways through which sex working participants are able to "think and act otherwise" (McKee 2011, 1).iii

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.018
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSex work and related issues→French-language works237,207→