Case Management Evaluation of Los Angeles County Criminal Courts Project Consultant Research Associate Margaret S. Elliott
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report documents the work completed for the Case Management Evaluation study, funded by the State Justice Institute under the technical assistance grant SJI-98-T-007. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of case management technology on the work of the criminal justice system in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Two interagency databases were evaluated: the Trial Court Information System (TCIS) and the Prosecutor's Information Management System (PIMS). See (Elliott, 1998a; Elliott, 1998b; Elliott and King, 1999, King and Elliott, 1998a; King and Elliott, 1998b; King and Elliott, 1999) for detailed reports on the first, second and third quarters of this project. In this report, we present the study background, a project overview, research objectives, research questions, research methods, a task summary of the entire project, findings for the entire project, conclusions, and recommendations. Appendix A describes the task summaries for the final quarter and close-out period
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 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 | 0.035 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".