MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391557818 · doi:10.1080/0735648x.2024.2309220

Black and blue: deconstructing Defund the Police

2024· article· en· W4391557818 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kaitlyn Hunter, Sulaimon Gıwa, Ryan Broll

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crime and Justice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologyArtPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demand to address police racism by ‘defunding the police’ echoed on- and offline in the summer of 2020 following the police murder of George Floyd, but it has not always been clear what defunding the police entails. Through an analysis of 300 stories posted on CBC News and CTV News websites in 2020–2021, this study addresses the construction of the Defund the Police campaign in Canadian news media. Black Lives Matter organized their Defund the Police campaign as a demand for: (1) alternatives to police services; (2) decriminalization; and (3) disarmament, demilitarization and technology. Yet, news media prioritized calls for alternatives to police services, while providing less attention to disarmament, demilitarization and technology demands, and largely excluding decriminalization from defunding conversations altogether. The news media constructed the Defund the Police campaign around three fluid interpretations: defunding as a call to remove and abolish police, as a call for budgetary reallocation and alternatives to police, and as a call for police reform and accountability. Support for a reallocation and alternatives interpretation of defunding was most prominent within the news media, suggesting that police budget cuts in favour of community supports will be the focus of defunding policy in the future.

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 score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crime and JusticeSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207