Policing hip hop: \nPolice and Other Agents of Control in Montreal Night Clubs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policing hip hop: \nPolice and Other Agents of Control in Montreal Night Clubs \nAnthony Mclachlan \nHip hop has been a part of urban spaces in the Global North and abroad for quite some time. It began in the predominantly Black South Bronx in 1973. Since then, it has spread across the United States and is arguably the most commercially successful genre of music currently existing. Through the four elements of hip hop – graffiti, breakdancing, DJing, and rapping – Black American youth conveyed their life experience to a broader public. Almost immediately after that was a response by law enforcement to contain this Black expressive artform. This research examines how hip hop is policed in Montreal nightclubs. Focusing on the actions of the police, club bouncers, and other club staff, it reveals the various methods and logics that shape the nightclub environment on hip hop nights, as well as the differences between the policing of Black and white hip hop nights. The findings suggest that anti- blackness in Montreal and Quebec forges imagined associations between Black hip hop artists and fans and street gangs, suturing a perceived relationship between Black hip hop and criminality that invites and justifies excessive policing and a confined public experience for Black Montrealers.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".