Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the role of safety and sexual harassment risk as the pivotal element for the understandings in gender and city debates both in literature and in public policy in Colombia, which derives from understanding women’s sexuality as either “kind mothers” or “chaste women” who must protect their sexuality in public spaces. Using ethnographic techniques in Barranquilla and Cali (Colombia), we suggest that the protection of sexuality is tangential to women’s concerns when thinking about mobility, public space, and urban dimensions. We argue that putting women’s sexuality at the center of public concerns by using space governance techniques helps reproduce a power scheme in which women lose because they are seen as childlike, vulnerable, and requiring protection. We defend the idea that we need to think spatially, but differently: using a legal geographies approach allows a novel tool to imagine refining policy approaches about vulnerable subjectivities in urban spaces. This paper reveals how space operates as a mechanism to produce identities associated with the mobility experiences of its inhabitants and related with class and gender axes. We argue that the emphasis on sexual harassment as the organizing vector of the interventions related to gender and the city reproduces gendered stereotypes of women and men and reinforces and legitimizes the role of the nation-state as patriarchal protector. Further, the emphasis on safety fails to recognize different ways in which women use their sexuality in cities, their agency, and their strategies for negotiating with governance techniques.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".