False security or greater social inclusion? Exploring perceptions of CCTV use in public and private spaces accessed by the homeless
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been well documented that owing to the vulnerability inherent in their situation and status, the homeless experience high rates of harassment and criminal victimization. And yet, the question of whether CCTV surveillance of public and private spaces - so frequently viewed by the middle classes as a positive source of potential security - might also be viewed by the homeless in similar ways. Within the present paper, I address this issue by considering the possibility that CCTV might be seen by some homeless men and women as offering: a) a measure of enhanced security for those living in the streets and in shelters, and; b) to the extent that security is conceived of as a social good, the receipt of which marks one as a citizen of the state, a means by which they can be reconstituted as something more than 'lesser citizens'. To test these ideas, I rely on data from interviews conducted with homeless service users, service providers for the homeless, and police personnel in three cities. What is revealed is a mixed set of beliefs as to the relative security and meaning of CCTV.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".