Observing the Observers: Researching Surveillance and Counter-Surveillance on 'Skid Row'
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using empirical research drawn from field studies on the policing of 'skid row' communities, this paper illustrates some of the theoretical, methodological and ethical problems that confront the researcher who studies surveillance and counter-surveillance within these contested settings. We begin by noting how, with the increasing use of the 'broken windows' policing model to regulate deviant individuals and to secure derelict urban spaces, researchers may be implicated in the use of surveillance and counter-surveillance by community stakeholders. Drawing examples from direct and covert field observations, field notes, and photographs, we demonstrate that there is a significant potential for the researcher to become identified as an agent of surveillance, and as a potential target of counter-surveillance, within such settings. We conclude by considering some of the theoretical, methodological and ethical implications of the researcher's complicity in these dynamics for both the conduct of surveillance studies in general, and for urban fieldwork in particular.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it