MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W62443692

On the Practices of Private Security Officers: Canadian Security Officers' Reflections on Training and Legitimacy

2011· article· en· W62443692 sur OpenAlexaffabout
John Manzo

Notice bibliographique

RevueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World Order · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePolicing Practices and Perceptions
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrivate securityPrivate sectorSocial securityPublic administrationOfficerSecurity studiesLegitimacyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceLawPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Private Security in the Twenty-First Century EVEN IN THE YEARS BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, SECURITY PERSONNEL WERE EVERYWHERE. In the United States, for example, Benson (1998) estimated that there were two and one-half private security officers for every municipal police officer, a trend that Jones and Newburn (1999) noted is increasing in their study of the private security industries in the United States and the United Kingdom. Waard (1999) saw the same trend in several other European countries. Newburn (2001) tied this growth to an increase in privately owned environments and the privatization of what had traditionally been public space in Western societies. Williams and Johnstone (2000) further considered the growing presence of, and reliance on, closed-circuit television (CCTV) in Britain as evidence of the increasing intrusion of private security in public realms. In Canada, Sanders (2005) noted a 67% increase in employment in this sector between 1991 and 2001, again, before September 11. Social scientific research on private security is, despite these social trends, still scant compared to that on traditional policing. Research has attended to the need and prescriptions for private security in various locations (Benson, 1998; Ferguson, 1991), and, in the case of shopping mall security, the need to have officers with whom customers can comfortably interact (Vellani, 2000). However, the most popular area of social scientific research into private security has not concerned concrete practices of security officers or firms, but rather what might be termed the (de)legitimating aspects of private security. Especially problematized have been the challenges of the increased role in governance that private security firms and officers play in the modem public realm and attendant issues of in private security (cf. Johnston and Shearing, 2003, Rigakos, 2002; Shearing, 1996; Shearing and Stenning, 1987; Wood and Shearing, 2007). With respect to empirical issues (as against the more theoretical concerns of Shearing and his coterie), perhaps the greatest critique of the of private security officers has surrounded the paucity in many jurisdictions, especially North American ones, of formal training regimens for them, as against the extensive and well-known training requirements for public police officers. In their foundational and influential Hallcrest Report H on private security trends and recommendations, Cunningham et al. (1990:312) reported that, despite improvements in the then-extant regimens for private security training in the United States, the average security officer only received four to six hours of instruction prior to their first assignments. Walsh (1994) echoed this need for extensive training four years later. By 2004, Fischer and Green (2004: 90) reported that 25 U.S. states required a formal training curriculum for private security officers. This percentage, however, reflected an improvement for those militating for more, and more standardized, training; in 1978, no U.S. states required training (Fischer and Green, 2004: 40). The content of that training varied greatly with respect to the employment of the officer in retail, office, airport, personal-service, and other settings. However, even these figures may still occasion pessimism. As Button (2007a: 118) points out, the most regulated North American states and provinces do not require remotely as rigorous standards for training as do nearly all European countries. There are, then, notable complaints derived from research and theorizing on private security, all concerning its legitimacy with respect to legal accountability and formal training regimens, as well as concerning the fact that, if private security officers are new de facto police, they do not appear to be as professional or as legitimate as are the real police. What is missing in much of this critically oriented research is what these security officers, however under-trained and illegitimate they might be, are actually doing. …

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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
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: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,165
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,968

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0580,033
Communication savante0,0130,006
Science ouverte0,0030,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

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 Opus0,203
Tête enseignante GPT0,429
Écart entre enseignants0,227 · 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

Citations10
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World OrderMême sujetPolicing Practices and PerceptionsTravaux en français237 207