Surveillance as Communicating Relational Messages: Advancing Understandings of the Surveilled Subject
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
Theoretical understandings of how and why surveilled subjects perceive and react to surveillance have rarely been engaged in the field of surveillance studies. This research introduces relational models of procedural justice as a framework through which the attitudes and behaviours of surveilled subjects can be more consistently understood in particular (but not singular) surveillance contexts. Qualitative analysis of encounters with surveillance at Pearson International Airport (Toronto, Canada) demonstrates that participants were attentive to relational concerns during these encounters. The findings are positioned in relation to the procedural justice literature to demonstrate the importance of the process of surveillance alongside, or even apart from, its outcomes in terms of understanding and explaining surveilled subjects’ experiences and formation of subjectivities at airports and perhaps more generally.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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