MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604451323 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13499

Trends in Officer‐involved Firearm Deaths in Oklahoma from 2000 to 2015

2017· article· en· W2604451323 on OpenAlexaff
Kyla M. Jorgenson, Andrea L. Wiens, Eric A. Pfeifer, Joshua Lanter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerMedical examinerMedicineLaw enforcementPoison controlOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionSuicide preventionMedical emergencyCriminologyLawPolitical sciencePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to collect data and disseminate trends in officer-involved firearm deaths in Oklahoma from 2000 to 2015. The Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) database was searched for civilian decedents with gunshot wounds inflicted by law enforcement officers and officer decedents with gunshot wounds inflicted by civilians. Five decedents were law enforcement officers, while 274 decedents were civilians. The number of civilian decedents throughout the study followed a quadratic trend. Civilian decedents were most commonly males (95%) between the ages of 20 and 39 (64%), had one or two gunshot wounds (46%), and had an increasing number of gunshot wounds over time. Postmortem toxicology testing most commonly detected ethanol, methamphetamine, cocaine, and PCP. Efforts toward increased tracking by various agencies and more scientific studies like this are needed to facilitate future analysis of trends in officer-involved firearm deaths.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207