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 OpenAlexaffabout
John Manzo

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0580.033
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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

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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World OrderSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207