MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127589986 · doi:10.1177/0967010608088777

Imagining Numbers: Risk, Quantification, and Aviation Security

2008· article· en· W2127589986 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSecurity Dialogue · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirport securityCivil aviationAviationInvocationSovereigntyComputer securityCritical security studiesPolitical scienceBusinessPublic administrationSecurity serviceLawEngineeringComputer scienceNetwork security policyPoliticsInformation security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aviation security is a vital but under-studied component of contemporary security. This article uses the Foucauldian notion of a 'dispositif of security' to understand how policies, practices, and institutions of aviation security are arranged to surveil, police, and control mobile populations. Moving beyond sovereign accounts of law or disciplinary descriptions of incarceration, the analysis of the dispositif demonstrates the ever-expanding areas of life that are colonized by 'security' and 'risk'. I argue that the general strategy of quantification and the specific tactic of the expert panel both illustrate how the invocation of risk allows for new and expanding security practices, and also masks the depoliticization of the airport and civil aviation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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