ArticleJournal of quantitative criminology2025
Using Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models to Identify Indicators of Vulnerability in Police Incident Narratives.
Article in Journal of quantitative criminology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Police routinely collect unstructured narrative reports of their interactions with civilians. These accounts have the potential to reveal the extent of police engagement with vulnerable populations. We test whether large language models (LLMs) can effectively replicate human qualitative coding of these narratives-a task that would otherwise be highly resource intensive. Methods: Using publicly available narrative reports from Boston Police Department, we compare human-generated and LLM-generated labels for four vulnerabilities: mental ill health, substance misuse, alcohol dependence, and homelessness. We assess multiple LLM sizes and prompting strategies, measure label variability through repeated prompts, and conduct counterfactual experiments to examine potential classification biases related to sex and race. Results: LLMs demonstrate high agreement with human coders in identifying narratives without vulnerabilities, particularly when repeated classifications are unanimous or near-unanimous. Human-LLM agreement improves with larger models and tailored prompting strategies, though effectiveness varies by vulnerability type. These findings suggest a human-LLM collaborative approach, where LLMs screen the majority of cases whilst humans review ambiguous instances, would significantly reduce manual coding requirements. Counterfactual analyses indicate minimal influence of subject sex and race on LLM classifications beyond those expected by chance. Conclusions: LLMs can substantially reduce resource requirements for analyzing large narrative datasets, whilst enhancing coding specificity and transparency, and enabling new approaches to replication and comparative analysis. These advances present promising opportunities for criminology and related fields.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.