MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136083354 · doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00473

Technology vs ‘terrorism’: circuits of city surveillance since September 11th

2003· article· en· W2136083354 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

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismPolitical scienceCriminologyComputer securitySociologyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since September 11th 2001 ‘terrorism’ has understandably become the preoccupation of many, especially in urban areas, where the threat of ‘terrorism’ is greatest. High on the list of priorities is tightening up the technological means of ensuring security, by adopting in particular new surveillance measures. While these are mainly expansions of already existing systems — biometrics, ID cards, CCTV and communications interception — an interesting and perhaps disturbing new feature of these is the apparent willingness to create modes of integration between previously separate systems. Similar software and dependence on algorithmic techniques permit data‐sharing across several boundaries that were previously less porous. The dispersed data‐gathering of the surveillant assemblage, that includes relatively ‘innocent’ items such as consumer transaction trails —‘categorical seduction’— converges with the more centralized activities of policing and intelligence —‘categorical suspicion’— in the effort to make urban areas safe. The consequences of this are likely to be far‐reaching, reinforcing our reliance on technological solutions, and increasingly inserting them into the routines of everyday life in the city. Depuis le 11 septembre 2001, le ‘terrorisme’ est naturellement devenu la préoccupation de beaucoup, surtout dans les zones urbaines où la menace ‘terroriste’ est la plus forte. Aux premiers rangs des priorités, on trouve les moyens technologiques d'assurer la sécurité, notamment l'adoption de nouvelles mesures de surveillance. Si certaines consistent principalement àétendre les systèmes existants (biométrie, cartes d'identité, circuits de télévision et interception des communications), l'une des nouvelles méthodes, intéressante mais quelque peu troublante, est la volonté apparente de créer des modes d'intégration entre des systèmes jusqu'alors indépendants. Des logiciels similaires et une subordination à des techniques algorithmiques permettent le partage de données à travers plusieurs frontières auparavant moins perméables. La collecte de données éparses dans l'assemblage de surveillance, incluant des éléments relativement ‘innocents’ tels que le suivi des transactions de clients s'allie aux activités les plus centralisées de la police et du renseignement afin de sécuriser les zones urbaines. Les conséquences sont susceptibles d'aller plus loin, renforçant notre dépendance à l'égard de solutions technologiques et multipliant celles‐ci dans les routines de la vie quotidienne urbaine.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.303 · 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