MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380630800 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.207

The Impact of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act and other Legislative Frameworks on Private Securities Operating in Drinking Establishments in South Africa

2022· article· en· W4380630800 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nkosingiphile Modeccai Mbhele, Mandlenkosi Richard Mphatheni, Ntsika Edward Mlamla, Shanta Balgobind Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislatureBusinessPrivate securityPrivate sectorCLARITYDutyFinancePublic administrationLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper seeks to explore the legislation and regulatory frameworks that guides the functionality and operation of private securities placed in drinking establishments in South Africa. Prior research has indicated lack of clarity regarding private security personnel regulation in drinking establishments, otherwise known as bouncers. For instance, the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) is the current regulatory structure which is mandated to monitor and regulate all the private security industries in South Africa. Private security players in South Africa are obligated to comply with the PSIR Act and related laws in general. For this reason, the duty of PSIRA to oversee and monitor private securities and to ensure that they comply with the law is paramount. However, a major concern is whether nightclub security is regulated in adherence to this Act or not. Research evidence has shown that security legislation and guidelines are either not in place or not enforced at nightclubs. The purpose of this article is to examine critical legislations that South African nightclub securities must comply with to ensure legitimacy. Furthermore, it assesses the regulatory body, PSIRA, in relation to South African nightclub securities. It further explores the training requirements needed to qualify as a nightclub security. Arguably, a limited number of studies address the skills and legal requirements nightclub securities need to meet to fully qualify to work as a nightclub security in South Africa. Thus this paper will add to the body of knowledge in the field of nightclub security regulation. Strengthening the regulatory framework and increasing the authority's enforcement capacity to regulate the industry more effectively have become inevitable obligations, especially in light of the continued growth in the private security industry. The article finds that nightclub security is not adequately regulated, leading to non-compliance of the regulatory framework from the private security industry. This paper is an extensive review of literature focusing on South African legislative frameworks that regulate private security operations in drinking establishments.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207