MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7113764443

Garland v. VanDerStok: Brief of Major Cities Chiefs Association; Police Executive Research Forum; and Current and Former National Security Officials, Law Enforcement Officers, and Prosecutors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners

2024· article· W7113764443 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2024
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePolicing Practices and Perceptions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLaw enforcementNational securityCriminal justiceState policeState (computer science)Community policingPopulationCriminal justice ethicsEnforcement
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Amici are the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and numerous current and former national security officials, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors. The Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) is a professional organization of police executives representing the largest cities in the United States and Canada. The mission of MCCA is to provide a forum for police executives from large population centers to address the challenges and issues of policing, to influence national and international policy that affects police services, to enhance the development of current and future police leaders, and to encourage and sponsor research that advances this mission. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a police research and policy organization which helps to improve the delivery of police services through the exercise of strong national leadership; public debate of political and criminal justice issues; and research and policy development. Since its founding in 1976, PERF has identified best practices on fundamental issues such as reducing police use of force; developing community policing and problem-oriented policing; using technologies to deliver police services to the community; and evaluating crime reduction strategies. Amici also include former federal national security officials and current and former state and federal law enforcement officials and prosecutors who have significant experience protecting our communities from gun violence by international terrorists, drug cartels, domestic violent extremists, and other malign actors. Amici represent a broad cross section of the national security and law enforcement community, including former career and politically appointed federal officials across Republican and Democratic administrations, from the National Security Council staff, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Defense, and Department of State, as well as current and former state law enforcement officers and prosecutors. A complete list of amici is included in the Appendix. As experienced counterterrorism officials, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and professional organizations representing police, amici understand that unfettered access to firearms poses a grave national security and public safety threat to the nation. Regulations requiring pre-sale background checks, serial numbers, and record-keeping are crucial to preventing malign actors from readily obtaining the lethal firearms they use to commit acts of terror and other violent crimes. Dangerous weapons easily and inexpensively assembled from kits — known as “ghost guns” because they have no serial numbers — have proliferated throughout the country, where malign actors actively seek to acquire them. Ghost guns severely hamper law enforcement’s effort to combat violent crime, terrorism, domestic extremism, and firearms trafficking, to the detriment of both public safety and national security. Amici have a strong interest in the regulation of ghost guns to prevent them from falling into the hands of those who aim to harm the United States and its citizens.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,772
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,370
Écart entre enseignants0,333 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeYLS (Yale Law School)Même sujetPolicing Practices and PerceptionsTravaux en français237 207