MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933760628 · doi:10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.13116

Partial Platforms and Oligoptic Surveillance in the Smart City

2019· article· en· W2933760628 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

VenueSurveillance & Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart cityGeospatial analysisComputer securityAsset managementAsset (computer security)Internet of ThingsOrder (exchange)Computer scienceArchitectural engineeringBusinessGeographyEngineeringRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart city technologies are proliferating in our urban environments. The latest iteration of the urban techno-fix, cities on a global level have begun piloting and plugging into a range of “smart” infrastructure and IoT, resulting in granular and even enactments of “the actually existing smart city.” Rather than evoking the once promised vision of the totalizing smart city, the adoption of these technologies draws attention to the fractured, varied, and layered characteristics of these systems. This paper draws on research into GeoPal, an asset management platform used mainly by business improvement areas (BIAs)—in order to ground our theoretical discussion of oligoptic geospatial surveillance.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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