MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164683824 · doi:10.1177/0002764207302472

The Simulation of Crime Control

2007· article· en· W2164683824 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

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyShadow (psychology)ExceptionalismInnocenceControl (management)Liberal democracyOrder (exchange)Economic JusticeCrime controlGun controlListing (finance)LawPolitical scienceAdaptation (eye)SociologyLaw and economicsCriminal justiceEconomicsPoliticsPsychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors argue that policing by consent is being displaced by policing by information control. This discomfiting adaptation in liberal democracies is possible in the shadow of asymmetrical, border-collapsing exceptionalism. It has also benefited from synoptic effects in which reference to the liberal democratic legacy substitutes for liberal democratic practices. Current technologies, as demonstrated in watch-listing, public relations operations, and fourth-generation training, exemplify ironic homage to a consent and democracy. These take for granted the loss of innocence: There is no “real” (democracy, order, control) but rather impressions, which require effective simulations. The article concludes with the contention that today it is control, not justice, that must be “seen to be done.”

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.397 · 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