Little England? The rise of open-street Closed-Circuit Television surveillance in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social monitoring is often explained in terms of top-down or hierarchal forms of power, which is reflected in the reliance on neo-Marxist and disciplinary society analytical frameworks in contemporary studies of open-street closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance. Established surveillance theories cannot account for instances when citizens themselves seek out regulatory measures in their own communities. Community schemes can precede and inform police policy. Drawing from developments in the sociology of governance, I examine media coverage, government document and questionnaire data regarding the rise of open-street CCTV schemes in Canadian cities, demonstrating empirically how regulation through CCTV surveillance can be generated from above (e.g. police, state), the middle (e.g. business entrepreneurs), and below (e.g. moral entrepreneurs and civic governance). Offering four suppositions that act as a pragmatic framework for understanding the rise of open-street CCTV in Canada, this article is a partial corrective to the reigning theoretical explanations regarding how regulatory projects like open-street CCTV are generated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".