Commission meetings, 1974-04 - 1991-06-24
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commission meetings, 1974 April - 1991 June 24. PART OF A SERIES: Materials in the series fall into one of several categories related to the Independent Commission's work product: (1) Commission meeting materials, which include meeting agendas, work plans, memoranda, and articles about police misconduct that were circulated and reviewed during the Commission's internal meetings; (2) public correspondence, which includes citizen complaints against the LAPD in the form of written testimony, articles, and an audio cassette tape, as well as letters drafted by citizens in support of the LAPD; (3) summaries of interviews held with LAPD officers regarding Departmental procedures and relations; (4) public meeting materials, which include transcripts, supplementary documents, and witness statements that were reviewed at the Commission's public meetings; (5) press releases related to the formation and work product of the Commission; and (6) miscellaneous materials reviewed by the Commission during its study, including LAPD personnel and training manuals, a memorandum of understanding, and messages from the LAPD's Mobile Digital Terminal (MDT) system.1. Independent Commission, memo, 1991-06-032. Rodney King beating & the questions it has raised, 1991-06-133. Fernandez, memo, 1991-06-17, to Independent Commission4. Johnson, memo, 1991-06-13, to Independent Commission5. Issues of racism & bias affecting the excessive use of force, 1991-06-166. Use of force, first quarter (1990-1991)7. Use of force, first quarter (1987, 1990)8. Use of force, first quarter (1989-1990)9. Reenforcing our values: use of force10. No. 1 in cops, not complaints, 1991-04-0111. Mandated training topics12. The big six: Policing America's largest cities, 199113. LAPD incident statistics, 199114. 1989 homocide rates, 1991-08-1315. Team 28, a team-policing experiment in Los Angeles, 1974-0416. Spiegel, memo, 1991-06-18, to Independent Commission17. Recruitment, selection and psychological testing, 1991-06-1818. Promotion, assignment & stress disability retirement, 1991-06-1819. Spiegel, memo, 1991-06-20, to Independent Commission20. Spiegel, memo, 1991-06-24, to Independent Commission21. Rodney King beating & the questions it has raised, 1991-06-24
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.470 | 0.327 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".