MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W62443692

On the Practices of Private Security Officers: Canadian Security Officers' Reflections on Training and Legitimacy

2011· article· en· W62443692 on OpenAlex
John Manzo

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World Order · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate securityPrivate sectorSocial securityPublic administrationOfficerSecurity studiesLegitimacyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Private Security in the Twenty-First Century EVEN IN THE YEARS BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, SECURITY PERSONNEL WERE EVERYWHERE. In the United States, for example, Benson (1998) estimated that there were two and one-half private security officers for every municipal police officer, a trend that Jones and Newburn (1999) noted is increasing in their study of the private security industries in the United States and the United Kingdom. Waard (1999) saw the same trend in several other European countries. Newburn (2001) tied this growth to an increase in privately owned environments and the privatization of what had traditionally been public space in Western societies. Williams and Johnstone (2000) further considered the growing presence of, and reliance on, closed-circuit television (CCTV) in Britain as evidence of the increasing intrusion of private security in public realms. In Canada, Sanders (2005) noted a 67% increase in employment in this sector between 1991 and 2001, again, before September 11. Social scientific research on private security is, despite these social trends, still scant compared to that on traditional policing. Research has attended to the need and prescriptions for private security in various locations (Benson, 1998; Ferguson, 1991), and, in the case of shopping mall security, the need to have officers with whom customers can comfortably interact (Vellani, 2000). However, the most popular area of social scientific research into private security has not concerned concrete practices of security officers or firms, but rather what might be termed the (de)legitimating aspects of private security. Especially problematized have been the challenges of the increased role in governance that private security firms and officers play in the modem public realm and attendant issues of in private security (cf. Johnston and Shearing, 2003, Rigakos, 2002; Shearing, 1996; Shearing and Stenning, 1987; Wood and Shearing, 2007). With respect to empirical issues (as against the more theoretical concerns of Shearing and his coterie), perhaps the greatest critique of the of private security officers has surrounded the paucity in many jurisdictions, especially North American ones, of formal training regimens for them, as against the extensive and well-known training requirements for public police officers. In their foundational and influential Hallcrest Report H on private security trends and recommendations, Cunningham et al. (1990:312) reported that, despite improvements in the then-extant regimens for private security training in the United States, the average security officer only received four to six hours of instruction prior to their first assignments. Walsh (1994) echoed this need for extensive training four years later. By 2004, Fischer and Green (2004: 90) reported that 25 U.S. states required a formal training curriculum for private security officers. This percentage, however, reflected an improvement for those militating for more, and more standardized, training; in 1978, no U.S. states required training (Fischer and Green, 2004: 40). The content of that training varied greatly with respect to the employment of the officer in retail, office, airport, personal-service, and other settings. However, even these figures may still occasion pessimism. As Button (2007a: 118) points out, the most regulated North American states and provinces do not require remotely as rigorous standards for training as do nearly all European countries. There are, then, notable complaints derived from research and theorizing on private security, all concerning its legitimacy with respect to legal accountability and formal training regimens, as well as concerning the fact that, if private security officers are new de facto police, they do not appear to be as professional or as legitimate as are the real police. What is missing in much of this critically oriented research is what these security officers, however under-trained and illegitimate they might be, are actually doing. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.227 · 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