MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000429274 · doi:10.24908/ss.v17i5.13521

Mainstreaming Colonial Experiences in Surveillance Studies

2019· article· en· W3000429274 on OpenAlexaff
Midori Ogasawara

Bibliographic record

VenueSurveillance & Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismModernization theoryPolitical sciencePolitical economySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decolonizing surveillance studies is an urgent task, needed to comprehend the unequal impacts of surveillance technologies in the past, present, and future. I discuss three aspects of research in comparison: technological novelty versus past experience, nation building versus colonization, and test versus initial operation of technology. Overall, I argue for the significance of colonial narratives that illustrate the early and severe, often violent experiences of surveillance that tend to be historically underestimated or politically concealed. First, scholarly work has been attracted to technological novelties of digital surveillance. But to grasp the social implications of surveillance, the historical background of technology offers a genealogical thread, and the past awaits as a rich repository to be discovered. Second, previous studies have drawn plural origins of modern surveillance from Western civilization. But modern nation building and colonialism should be examined together in research, rather than separating them and placing nation building as central to modernization while placing colonialism as a side effect or exception of modernization. Such a separation fails to grasp the experiences of modern surveillance as a whole because nation-state is all too often colonial nation-state. Lastly, I question the prevailing concept of a “boomerang effect,” meaning that Western countries first test out harmful techniques on colonies, but soon these techniques come home. This boomerang effect view centers on the West. A “test” of surveillance technology targeted a group of people for its own purpose, and the systematic practice of surveillance left irreversible effects in colonies. Those effects immensely contributed to today’s foundation of global political economy as an ongoing process of technological dominance of the Global North over the South. To decolonize surveillance studies, it would be better to discuss the global experiences of surveillance in the frame of unequal distribution and outcome of technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0210.093
Scholarly communication0.0160.022
Open science0.0020.018
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurveillance & SocietySame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207