The Eric Garner Case: Statewide Survey of New York Voters’ Response to Proposed Police Accountability Legislation
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
The Eric Garner case was unique because this police-induced death was caught on video from before the moment of physical confrontation. A mixed-methods representative household survey and Garner's arrest video were used to determine NYS voters' opinions (n = 119) about police indictment and Governor Cuomo's request for expanded authority. Respondents were asked whether the officers should face indictment, shown the arrest video, and then asked again about indictment. Prior to the video, a majority of respondents (n = 86; 57.4%) believed involved officers should have been indicted. After viewing, the proportion increased by 13.7%. A majority supported Cuomo's call for expanded authority to appoint a special prosecutor in cases where police are involved in civilian deaths. Study limitations include prior exposure to the footage and a low response rate. NYS voters generally supported Cuomo's proposal for appointing a special prosecutor; however, a quarter of respondents disagreed with the method of reform and expressed a: 1) preference for every case to go to trial; 2) preference for a case-by-case basis; or 3) distrust in state-appointed special prosecutors. This research could inform discussions regarding proposed system reforms. Future research with a less well-circulated video is needed to determine the extent to which videos of police-induced deaths affect public opinion.
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 | 0.027 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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