Rebranding surveillance as social justice — Toronto’s School Resource Officer Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Institutional efforts which rebrand inner-city surveillance as socio-economic redress have increasingly informed punitive regression in youth justice, for youth of colour. This paper responds to a critical debate emerging within the youth justice literature, which considers that the widespread punitiveness characterising youth justice since the 1990s is at an end. The case for punitive regression draws on the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program in Toronto, Canada — a scheme which assigns armed, uniformed police officers to high school in socio-economic deprived inner-city communities. The SRO scheme emerged as part of the ‘Priority Community’ initiative, a model of urban, socio-economic regeneration intended to redress socio-economic inequity. While the SRO scheme emerged as part of an agenda to redress inequity, one outcome has been higher rates of suspension, expulsion and arrests for black students — compared to their white classmates. The case for punitive regression challenges the notion that the state of contemporary youth justice is entering an era of progressive reform. Moreover, the paper problematises the notion of ‘Progressive’ in regards to the institutional consensus which has made surveillance synonymous with social justice.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".