MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281706043 · doi:10.1177/13624806221099930

Private security and national security: The case of Estonia

2022· article· en· W4281706043 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Light, Anne‐Marie Singh, Josh Gold

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical Criminology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsInternational Council for Canadian StudiesToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrivate securityNational securitySecurity studiesEnvironmental securityComputer securityPolitical scienceBusinessPublic administrationComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most studies of private security postulate exclusively internal, primarily economic, causes of the industry's growth and regulation. In contrast, based on the case of post-Soviet Estonia, we investigate how a state's external security environment influences private security. Estonia's tense relations with neighbouring Russia and related pursuit of EU and NATO membership have generated several policies through which private security evolved from a lawless, politically contested industry to a modest, lightly regulated one: (1) the exclusion of public police from private security and an effective campaign against organized crime that together enabled an autonomous and non-criminalized security industry to emerge, (2) free-trade policies that permitted western companies to acquire Estonian security firms, and (3) an 'all-of-nation' approach to national security that promotes comprehensive state-civil society security cooperation. Estonia thus clarifies how high politics shapes private security, while also revealing the factors that make the industry relatively uncontentious in most industrialized democracies.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical CriminologySame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207