MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326304363 · doi:10.1177/1362480610396649

The benevolent watch: Therapeutic surveillance in drug treatment court

2011· article· en· W2326304363 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

VenueTheoretical Criminology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanopticonCriminologySocial controlControl (management)Field (mathematics)SociologyAssemblage (archaeology)Public relationsSocial psychologyPsychologyLawPolitical sciencePoliticsSocial scienceComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers an alternative to the traditional, technocentric and control oriented focus of surveillance studies. Drawing on field work in drug treatment courts (DTCs), I theorize the notion of ‘therapeutic surveillance’ as a seemingly benevolent form of monitoring which also troubles the ‘care/control’ dichotomy familiar to surveillance studies and social theory more generally. I look specifically at the roles of judges, treatment workers and DTC participants in constituting a surveillant assemblage which relies on personal relationships, intimate knowledge and pastoral care. I suggest that surveillance studies can move beyond the panopticon by recognizing the varied ways in which surveillance takes place. These strategies can include benevolent acts and intentions alongside (and sometimes coterminous with) coercive manoeuvres.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.171 · 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