Revitalizing Dissent: Imperatives for Critical Surveillance Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this introduction to Surveillance & Society’s twentieth anniversary issue, we reflect on the journal’s role in the formation and maturation of the field and on some of the many areas in need of further study and intervention. In keeping with one of the journal’s original objectives of “encouraging debate and dissent,” we argue that it is imperative that the field reaffirm this dissenting posture. Such dissent would be primarily critical and decolonial, and it would concentrate its energies on correcting social and environmental problems. Some of the areas in need of more intensive critical inquiry are 1) surveillance / platform / data capitalism, 2) war and conflict, 3) disinformation and media manipulation, 4) racial injustice and carcerality, 5) intersectional violence and oppression, and 6) environmental crises and climate collapse. Fortunately, as many of the recent publications in the journal affirm, scholars are already moving in these directions, and we, as editors, are doing everything we can to support such critical work and the academics producing it.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".