MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029487789 · doi:10.1177/0964663909345096

Signs of the Surveillant Assemblage: Privacy Regulation, Urban CCTV, and Governmentality

2009· article· en· W2029487789 on OpenAlexaff
Randy K. Lippert

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial & Legal Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernmentalityAssemblage (archaeology)SignageContext (archaeology)SociologyPanopticonCorporate governanceLawInternet privacyPoliticsComputer securityPolitical scienceAdvertisingBusinessGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Signage in urban ‘open-street’ CCTV arrangements is explored in relation to the strategies and forms of law brought to bear upon it. In the context of privacy regulation, CCTV signage’s content reflects deterrence strategies and political subjectification consistent with liberal governmentality. CCTV signage is evinced to be both an agent and target of privacy and other forms of law and is therefore shaped and brought into being by complex webs of legal governance. Rather than befitting panoptic arrangements or merely amplifying CCTV’s deterrent effects, CCTV signage signals and serves as a vital element of the surveillant assemblage. Possessing varied functions, including features attributed to surveillance cameras, CCTV signage is a material means by which the surveillance assemblage interfaces with the legal complex and by which urban time-spaces are constituted. This analysis moves beyond previous accounts of regulatory signage and has broad implications for governmentality and surveillance studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial & Legal StudiesSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207