Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through an analysis of the complex governance of security regulations, the interplay of public and private actors, and the effect of a lack of consensus on certain security measures, the paper demonstrates how the authority of a field of professionals may increase even during policy disputes. While traditional studies of security focus on state apparatuses of power and military force or policing, [author] contends that more and more security work is being done by new actors and agencies that do not conform to the old models. The AVSEC case in Europe and Canada confirms that security screening at airports is being performed by private actors according to security regulations being written by Transport Ministries. While quotidian, the management of aviation security touches international, regional, and national regulations, and reaches across public and private domains. Para-security agencies and actors are increasingly involved in public security work, like aviation security screening. Although government and industry desire an integration of risk management, the practical acceptance of the RM methodology is hampered by a completely lack of metrics for public security and risk. Salter examines how sector-wide standards circulate amongst a field of national, regional, international, public and private actors, even when there is tension between actors, the authority of the field to manage its object increases. The dispute between EU, Canadian, and US standards for the handling of liquids and hold baggage screening strengthen the shared assumptions, norms, and expertise of the AVSEC field.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".