Bibliographic record
Abstract
Security has become a – if not the – dominant discourse of modern life; as Michael Dillon observes, it ‘saturates the language of modern politics. Our political vocabularies reek of it and our political imagination is confined by it.’ Law and order issues, once the terrain of the political right, have become the rallying cry of virtually all political parties, and security is increasingly the lens through which political issues are filtered, be they international migration, health, environmental degradation or development aid. In the wake of the attacks of 11 September 2001, these dynamics have intensified yet further, and the urgent need for security, the containment of danger and the identification and management of any kind of risk have become a pervasive rhetoric. In this sense, Ulrich Beck’s description (though perhaps not his diagnosis) of late modernity as ‘risk society’ appears ever-more accurate: risks, in Beck’s terminology, are open to social definition and construction. They are also insatiable, infinite, ‘a bottomless barrel of demands’. Any understanding of the role and expansion of private security in contemporary international politics needs to be set against this backdrop of an expanding security agenda. The growth and globalization of private security reflects significant shifts in social and political life, and in economic structures. These transformations are located at the local and national levels, but they are connected to global dynamics and discourses in myriad ways and have combined to give rise to transnational security actors and structures. The task of this chapter is to situate the growth of private security within this broader context and the related reconfiguration of the relationship between public and private power and authority.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".