MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926782780 · doi:10.25549/webster-c100-88418

Operations valley bureau, West valley area, activities reports, 1992-02/1992-06

2021· dataset· en· W6926782780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Southern California Digital Library · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionTraining (meteorology)Software deploymentPeriod (music)Administration (probate law)Quarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Operations valley bureau, West valley area, activities reports and meeting agendas, 1992 February - 1992 June. PART OF SERIES: The series includes records pertaining to the Webster Commission's Discovery Request, which solicited documents related to the internal operations of the Los Angeles Police Department immediately before and during the Rodney King riots. Materials fall into four categories of documents requested by the Commission for this purpose: activity reports, meeting agendas and minutes, itineraries of Department-led training sessions, and roll call deployment period reports from these training sessions. PART OF SUBSERIES: Materials related to the Valley Bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department's Office of Operations between March, 1991 and June, 1992. Included are activities reports and intradepartmental correspondence, as well as minutes from the Commanding Officers' staff meetings. The series also contains records specific to each of the Bureau's constituent areas, including agendas and minutes from area supervisor meetings, supporting materials from these meetings, and materials pertaining to training sessions conducted within each area.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.088

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Southern California Digital LibrarySame topicData Analysis with RFrench-language works237,207