Citizen security revisited: Whose security/ies are we talking about?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article addresses two issues related to citizen security and its developments in Mexico. First, it analyzes the limits of citizen security in terms of its exclusions and marginalizations as they particularly affect women and migrants. It is argued that citizen security policy does not capture the multilayered security concerns that affect women. As programs of citizen security are primarily directed at public spaces, gender‐based violence, in particular domestic violence, is not included in its conceptualization. Second, migrants in transit are being excluded from citizen security for being noncitizens and thus “underserving subjects.” Moreover, citizen security tends to be place‐bound as it is directed at the community level, while migrants are persons in situations of mobility and therefore escape place‐bound initiatives. The second part of this article focuses on how the current militarization of Mexico's security policy has affected citizen security. It finds that this militarization has deprioritized citizen security, affecting women and migrants in particular.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".