Policing Property and Moral Risk Through Promotions, Anonymization and Rewards: Crime Stoppers Revisited
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores promotions, anonymity and rewards as techniques of governance in Canadian Crime Stoppers (CS) programmes by analysing texts and personal interviews. The function of CS Crime of the Week advertisements is found to be more a practical effort to reduce loss along property lines through offering rewards and anonymity and less a tactical effort to solve mostly violent crimes or a symbolic endeavour consistent with the promotion of ‘law and order’ ideology. Through new partnerships with CS, various partners including private insurance gain symbolic but also practical risk management benefits. Anonymization promises to reduce risk to ‘tipsters’ and moral risk to police and partners. A graduated system of rewards seeks to manage risk while encouraging risk among ‘tipsters’ and is linked to moral imaginings of the tipster as ‘good citizen’ and ‘criminal’. Risk and morality are therefore linked in this context. These techniques of governance are deployed together to render the policing of property and moral risks possible as these techniques are themselves governed. CS does not simply aid law enforcement. Rather, in CS law is at once a way in which these techniques are governed and a barrier to their deployment. These findings have implications for the sociology of governance and law and move beyond previous research on CS.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it