MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282974222 · doi:10.24908/ss.v20i2.14536

Security, Suspicion, and Surveillance? There’s an App for That

2022· article· en· W4282974222 on OpenAlex
Liam Kennedy, Madelaine Coelho

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 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularitySocial mediaInternet privacyFeelingOrder (exchange)CriminologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer securitySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessComputer sciencePsychologySocial psychologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the recent rise in popularity of mobile safety applications, social scientists have yet to examine these applications in any considerable depth. In this paper we undertake the case studies of bSafe, Citizen, and Nextdoor – analyzing promotional materials and blog posts – in order to further theorize digital security consumption and the potential concomitant social harms. We find these app companies frame crime and risk in ways that obscure the structural elements that precede crime and encourage social divisions. Drawing from over 30,000 user reviews, we speculate about the ways these apps might shape understandings, feelings, and experiences of risk, crime, and victimization. A closer examination of these apps is particularly urgent given these digital technologies have been mobilized in similar ways to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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