Bibliographic record
Abstract
A persistent feature of research and writing on the provision of safety and security has been the equation of the activity of one of the police, with policing - understood as an activity intended to promote safe and secure places in which people can live, work, and play (Bayley and Shearing 1996). This limited focus recognizes, and as such assists in constituting, state-based modes of governing security, whereby the as an institution seeks to exercise a monopoly of legitimate force within a particular territory (Hoffman 1995:3). While it is certainly true that states have claimed such a monopoly and have sought to use police both to express and maintain it, policing has - as Cain (1979) noted almost two decades ago - always involved more than this. The police have always existed within networks of other institutions and practices that promote security (Johnston 1992). This is particularly true today, as forms of governance outside of the police have emerged as significant sources of policing. Such forms of governance are a result of two main trends: firstly, the re-emergence of private governments (Macauly 1986): and secondly, the reinvention of governance (Osborne and Gaebler 1993) where strategies are developed to permit the to govern through the mobilization of community resources (Rose 1996). This paper seeks to contribute to an understanding of networks of governance beyond the state (Hoffman 1995) through an examination of the programmes of one of the institutions of security within the University of Toronto, the Personal Safety Awareness Office (PSAO). The analysis to follow is aimed at exploring the ways in which three themes that have been identified in the literature as crucial features of contemporary governance - a focus on community, local responsibility, and a risk mentality - operate outside of established structures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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".