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
If surveillance was once thought of as primarily the domain of the nation-state, or of organizations such as firms within the nation-state, in the 21st century it must be considered in a broader context. Surveillance has to do with the rationalized control of information within modern organizations, and involves in particular processing personal data for the purposes of influence, management, or control. It also depends for its success on the involvement of its ‘data-subjects’. In countries of the global north, surveillance expanded with increasing rapidity after computerization from the 1970s onwards, a process that also enabled it to spread more readily to other areas, especially from workers and citizens to consumers and travellers. Since the 1980s, surveillance has become increasingly globalized, as populations become more mobile, and as social relations and transactions have stretched more elastically over time and space. Globalizing surveillance was also catalyzed by the events of 11 September 2001. However, surveillance processes occur differently in different cultural contexts, as do responses to them. Understanding comparatively the various modes of surveillance, understood sociologically, helps us grasp one of the key features of today’s world and also to see political and policy responses to it in perspective.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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