MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392108102 · doi:10.1111/lamp.12332

Citizen security revisited: Whose security/ies are we talking about?

2024· article· en· W4392108102 on OpenAlex
Marianne H. Marchand

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

VenueLatin American Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securitySecurity studiesPolitical scienceBusinessPublic administrationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.338 · 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