MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W104590376 · doi:10.1177/030437540302800302

Security Assemblages: Airport Security, Flexible Work, and Liberal Governance

2003· article· en· W104590376 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Randy K. Lippert, Daniel O’Connor

Notice bibliographique

RevueAlternatives Global Local Political · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueEmployment and Welfare Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Windsor
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCorporate governanceWork (physics)Airport securityPublic administrationPolitical scienceComputer securityBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringFinance

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Security has become a more intense focus of public debate and concern following the events of September 11, 2001. In North America, especially, much media and political discourse has centered on the private security workforce charged with the provision of airport security services and, specifically, the quality of service it provides. In response, it is widely claimed that a (1) is occurring in the character of security governance and that we are witnessing a radical shift in the way security workforces airports and elsewhere in society are recruited, trained, and managed. Absent from current debate about security governance is recognition of an earlier, more important development and its intersection with current trends in work and governance. Here we refer to the development of private properties, described by Clifford Shearing and Philip Stenning as a in security governance, (2) and the way in which this development intersects the onset of advanced liberalism (3) a nd the current trend toward the flexibilization of work arrangements associated with the new economy. (4) What has happened since September 11 is less a sea change in airport-security governance and more a problematization of the character of security governance. (5) Efforts to deal with this problematization have far-reaching implications, not only for the way we understand security and its limits but also for the deployment of security assemblages in other domains. In this article, we first discuss previous perspectives on private security, with an eye to both highlighting gaps in this literature and gaining insight into what may be emerging in airport-security governance. In particular, we identify significant omissions concerning the nature of the private security workforce, the ways it is governed, and the as both producer of mass private properties and consumer of security services. This body of research indicates that the processes of commodification combined with the spatialization of mass private properties are important factors to be considered. But in doing so, it can offer only a partial explanation. The provision of security also entails the governance of working populations. We therefore proceed to elaborate a distinct framework, employing concepts such as flexibilization (6) and assemblage (7) drawn from research on the new economy and governmentality, in order to understand the current context of security governance better. From the new-economy literature dealing with the flexibilization of work, we discuss trends in its management and the character of private- and public-sector work; namely, the outsourcing of noncore activities and the creation of quasi-public special agencies. Although the governmentality literature has paid little attention to the governance of work, it is our contention that these forms of governance are consistent with those deemed to operate beyond the state (8) but within advanced liberalism. Consonant with these notions, we demonstrate that a focal point of recent debate about airport-security governance in Canada is the quality of the security workforce conducting passenger screening and how this workforce should be governed. We argue that what has been occurring in airport-security governance since September 11 is neither a return to what came before the quiet revolution nor business as usual. These events have indeed led to a recognition that reducing the cost of delivering public services also tends to reduce both the quality of service and of the workforce that delivers it and that this can have far-reaching effects. Yet, we argue that this recognition is simply that: a recognition of a serious limitation or failure. As such, it is leading not to a sudden, wholesale shift to a new security assemblage but to one that is configured using mostly old parts. In Canada, this new assemblage entails deployment of a new special agency, funded through the responsibilizing strategy of airport user fee s, to govern the airport-security workforce at a distance. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,070

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0140,072
Communication savante0,0160,013
Science ouverte0,0010,014
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,395
Écart entre enseignants0,361 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations56
Publié2003
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAlternatives Global Local PoliticalMême sujetEmployment and Welfare StudiesTravaux en français237 207