Policing <i>The New Commons</i> : Corporate Security Governance on a Mass Private Property in Canada
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: Not applicable
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.114
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.475
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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 | 0.001 | 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
This article examines the governance programme of an in-house security department on a mass private property in Canada. Under the auspice of state laws, diverse zones of autonomy are constituted and powerful governance programmes are authorized to police communities of patrons, staff and other service providers within and beyond property boundaries. Analysis of this particular security programme reveals a primary concern with the maintenance and promotion of a corporate image rather than justice. This aim is supported by the in-house security department as it actualizes various forms of risk management, both through informal and systematic risk-based patron profiles and classification schemes. In addition to providing physical security and managing populations through risk, security officers are also involved in “information work” necessary for the reproduction of the programmatic risk management formula.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Policing & Society
- Topic
- Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- not available
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Corporate governanceAutonomyPublic administrationBusinessWork (physics)Corporate securityService (business)Promotion (chess)Public relationsRisk managementPolitical scienceLawFinancePoliticsEngineering
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes