MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325384304 · doi:10.1515/pol-2015-0007

Illegal Search and Seizure, Due Process, and the Rights of the Accused: The Voices of Power in the Rhetoric of Los Angeles Police Chief William H. Parker

2015· article· en· W2325384304 on OpenAlexaff
John Casey Gooch

Bibliographic record

VenuePólemos · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionSupreme courtRhetoricPower (physics)LawPolitical scienceSociologyArtPhilosophyLiteratureTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As a rhetorical analysis, this paper considers “voices of power” in the discourse of William H. (“Bill”) Parker, former police chief of Los Angeles from 1950 until 1966. Specifically, it tells the story of a conflict between powerful voices, with Chief Parker on one side of a debate over the rights of the accused and the United States Supreme Court on the other. Three case studies serve as the basis for illustrating the Chief’s rhetorical strategies. In 1954, Parker’s responded to the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePólemosSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207