Making Sense of Neoliberal Securitization in Urban Policing and Surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grâce à une analyse historique des fonctions de surveillance de police civile, cet article examine comment la titrisation civile se déroule en traitant disciplinaire‐surveillance et de sécurité‐surveillance des pratiques distinctes et des appareils qui fonctionnent respectivement à des moyens “centripètes” et “centrifuge” et en reconfigurant triangulation de Foucault de la gouvernance d'une matrice à deux par deux: la souveraineté‐gouvernement et de la discipline‐sécurité. Cet article montre comment la titrisation de police civile s'aligne avec la transformation actuelle du gouvernement à partir d'un centripète (Keynésienne) d'une centrifuge (néolibéral) la rationalité politique. Cela revêt une importance plus large de recherche: où la rationalité politique favorise l’équilibre n'avons‐nous pas trouver une prépondérance de la discipline‐surveillance? Où déséquilibre est promu n'avons‐nous pas trouver une prépondérance de la sécurité‐surveillance? Through a historic analysis of the surveillance functions of civil policing, this article considers how securitization is taking place by treating disciplinary surveillance and security surveillance as distinct practices and apparatuses that, respectively, function in “centripetal” and “centrifugal” ways and by reconfiguring Foucault's triangulation of governance to a two‐by‐two matrix: sovereignty government and discipline security. This article shows how the securitization of civil policing aligns with the current governmental transformation from a centripetal (Keynesian) to a centrifugal (neoliberal) governmentality. This has broader research significance: where governmentality promotes equilibrium do we not find a preponderance of disciplinary surveillance? Where disequilibrium is promoted do we not find a preponderance of security 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".