Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie 32(3) 2007\t 317 Insecurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This article explores the role of political leaders in the social construction of collective insecurity. Two parts comprise the article. The first part introduces the concepts of collective insecurity, state protection, and “threat infrastructure”; the second part takes a critical look at the literature on moral panic and formulates an integrated framework for the analysis of the politics of insecurity. Starting from the assumption that political leaders help shape the perception of collective threats despite the existence of enduring structural constraints, this framework comprises five main theoretical claims. Taken individually, several of these claims are present in existing sociology and political science literatures. Yet, this contribution articulates such claims in order to formulate an integrated framework that bridges streams of scholarship that are too rarely discussed together in current debates on the politics of insecurity. Résumé. Cet article explore le rôle des acteurs politiques dans la construction sociale de l’insécurité collective. L’article se divise en deux parties. La première partie introduit les concepts d’insécurité collective, de protection étatique et d’«infrastructure du risque»; la deuxième partie formule un cadre d’analyse intégré pour l’étude de la politique de
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.006 |
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".