MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577578481 · doi:10.24908/ss.v9i3.4285

Municipal Corporate Security and the Intensification of Urban Surveillance

2012· article· en· W1577578481 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Randy K. Lippert, Kevin Walby

Bibliographic record

VenueSurveillance & Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Windsor
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWork (physics)RepurposingBusinessPublic securityPublic relationsElectronic surveillanceComputer securityInternet privacyPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the surveillance work of municipal corporate security (MCS) units in Canadian cities. Drawing on analysis of freedom of information requests, we document the introduction of new and modified surveillance technologies through MCS. These units engage in surveillance of City employees and citizens on municipal lands and in municipal buildings. Although some technologies deployed by MCS (such as electronic access cards and badges) appear mundane, we demonstrate how MCS units are repurposing, enhancing, and recombining these technologies with existing forms in ways that have been described as the intensification of surveillance. While recent attention in the surveillance studies and urban studies literatures has been rightfully placed on private auspices and provision of externally directed urban surveillance, our analysis of MCS activities suggests that scholars should continue to focus on public auspices and provision of security and internally directed surveillance too. What defines the intensification of urban surveillance therefore may be less a privatized and technologically advanced character and more a resolute comfort with a constantly mutating amalgam of public/private, human/technological, and external/internal forms and foci.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurveillance & SocietySame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207