MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255527708 · doi:10.3138/uhr.47.1-2.07

Bad Bastards?: Tattooing, Health, and Regulation in Twentieth-Century Vancouver

2018· article· en· W4255527708 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jamie Jelinski

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTattoo and Body Piercing Complications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Journal of Communication (Canada)
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsNewspaperSanitationState (computer science)Political scienceSociologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using local newspapers and archival documents from the City of Vancouver Archives, this article investigates how state actors—namely the city of Vancouver’s Health Department—attempted to regulate professional tattooing in Vancouver. Simultaneously, I consider how tattooists understood health and sanitation relative to tattooing and, in the process, responded to and challenged regulation. In doing so, I investigate the complex relationship between Vancouver’s professional tattooists and state actors, focusing on the methods used to regulate tattooing. I argue that although unfounded or inadequately established health concerns typically concealed efforts to control tattooing, tattooists worked within and against regulation to maintain a presence in Vancouver.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicTattoo and Body Piercing ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207