MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053464075 · doi:10.1145/2132176.2132222

Private sector video surveillance in Toronto

2012· article· en· W2053464075 on OpenAlex
Andrew Clement, Joseph Ferenbok, Roxanna Dehghan, Laura Kaminker, Simeon Kanev

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2012 iConference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsSignageBusinessInternet privacyPrivate sectorLaw enforcementOpenness to experienceEnforcementElectronic surveillanceDowntownService (business)Private securityComputer securityComputer scienceAdvertisingPublic administrationMarketingLawPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the findings of a fieldwork study conducted on private sector video surveillance and signage in the Toronto area. The presence and operation of over 140 video surveillance camera schemes by large service providing corporations, in 2 major shopping centres and visible from public areas in downtown Toronto is documented. We analyse the data generated in relation to compliance with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), the prevailing privacy law that governs such video surveillance operations. We find widespread non-compliance with PIPEDA, especially with regard to Principles 8 - Openness, and 9 - Individual Access. We explain this finding as resulting from a form of "security over-ride," in which claims of security trump other concerns, including personal privacy. We propose stronger privacy awareness and enforcement around private sector video surveillance.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.261 · 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