Restraint in police use of force events: Examining sudden in custody death for prone and not-prone positions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is understood about the incidence of sudden death, its underlying pathophysiology, or its actual relationship to subject positioning. We report data from 4828 consecutive use of force events (August 2006-March 2013) in 7 Canadian police agencies in Eastern and Western Canada. Consecutive subjects aged >18 years who were involved in a police use of force event were included regardless of outcome. Officers prospectively documented: final resting position of the subject (prone or non-prone), intoxicants and/or emotional distress, presence of features of excited delirium, and the use of all force modalities. Our outcome of interest was sudden in-custody death. Our study has 80% power to detect a difference of 0.5% in sudden death between the positions. In over 3.25 million consecutive police--public interactions; use of force occurred in 4,828 subjects (0.1% of police public interactions; 95% CI = 0.1%, 0.1%). Subjects were usually male (87.5%); median age 32 years; 81.5% exhibited alcohol and/or drug intoxication, and/or emotional distress at the scene. Significantly more subjects remained in a non-prone vs. prone position; but over 2000 subjects remained prone. One individual died suddenly and unexpectedly in the non-prone position with all 10 features of excited delirium. No subject died in the prone position. There was no significant difference in sudden in custody death, in a worst case scenario 99.8% of subjects would be expected to survive being in either the prone or non-prone position following police use of force.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it