Codebook with Integrated Coding Protocols

This document integrates the codebook definitions with specific coding protocols to ensure consistent, rigorous analysis across all incidents.

CORE METHODOLOGY SECTIONS

THESE SECTIONS MUST BE REVIEWED BEFORE CODING ANY VARIABLE

SECTION 1: INCIDENT CODING RESET PROTOCOL

This protocol ensures that incident coding outputs are fully auditable, transparent, and free from unintended memory-based behavior. It establishes a clean baseline for all future incident analysis.

MEMORY RESET REQUIREMENTS

Before any new incident coding session begins, the AI assistant must perform the following:

  1. Clear system-level memory
    Remove all stored behavioral instructions related to variable order, source validation, default logic, derived variables, or any prior enforcement logic.

  2. Clear hybrid-layer memory
    Discard all implicit or inferred behaviors based on prior coding sessions, even if not stored as formal memory. This includes:
    • Scoping conventions
    • Prior tone inference defaults
    • Policy-based logic or variable grouping patterns

  3. Reset session assumptions
    Do not assume any prior incidents, quoting protocols, scoping logic, or enforcement practices are still valid.

  4. Acknowledge baseline state
    Assistant must confirm when a clean state is active and no enforcement rules remain unless explicitly provided in the current project files or session instructions.

RULES FOR POST-RESET BEHAVIOR

After a memory reset:

SECTION 2: INCIDENT BOUNDARY IDENTIFICATION

SECTION 3: SOURCE IDENTIFICATION AND REFERENCE

SECTION 4: SOURCE EXTRACTION AND VALIDATION

SECTION 5: JUSTIFICATION CONSTRUCTION

SECTION 6: SOURCE VERIFICATION

VARIABLE-SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS AND PROTOCOLS

METADATA & UTILITY FIELDS

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

incident_id

Definition: Globally unique identifier for each incident (e.g., INC-001)

Coding Protocol:

date

Definition: Date the incident occurred (YYYY-MM-DD)

Coding Protocol:

source_ids

Definition: List of ALL internal source references provided to you in file format for incident documentation

Coding Protocol:

keywords

Definition: Internal-use incident tags for filtering and scrape

Coding Protocol:

BINARY/BOOLEAN VARIABLES

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

org_affiliated_actor

Definition: Was the actor affiliated with either a UCLA student org or USAC?
→ true, false

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

actor_student

Definition: Was the actor a student at UCLA?
→ true, false

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

NOMINAL CATEGORICAL VARIABLES - PART 1

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

admin_response_type

Definition: Categorizes whether and how the administration publicly acknowledged the incident
→ incident_specific, general_statement, none

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

accountability_follow_up

Definition: Categorizes the nature of any administrative follow-up action (disciplinary process, civil and/or police investigation) to hold offending actors accountable
→ none, proposed, n/a

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

admin_support_offered

Definition: Whether there was supportive language included in an administrative response to assist students who may require justice, accountability, or repair
→ n/a, none, counseling/referral, violation_warning, campus_climate_initiative, positive_inclusion, institutional_responsibility, general_commitment, multiple

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

target_group, actor_group

Definition: Primary identity or identity affiliated with group targeted or affected
→ Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, Multiple, Unknown

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

NOMINAL CATEGORICAL VARIABLES - PART 2

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

media_coverage_level

Definition: Degree of public visibility based on external coverage (excluding Daily Bruin and admin activity)
→ none, low, network-amplified, moderate, high

Special Protocol for media_coverage_level:

  1. Pre-coding requirements:
    • Make an initial list of ALL relevant sources (excluding Daily Bruin and admin sources)
    • For each source, document publication date to verify it falls within 14 days of incident
    • Classify each source as: internal/niche, ecosystem-specific, or general public reach
  2. Threshold determination:
    • Count the EXACT number of qualifying sources for each level
    • Assign the HIGHEST qualifying level where ALL minimum thresholds are met:
      • none: Fewer than 2 sources
      • low: At least 2 internal or niche sources, no external visibility
      • network-amplified: At least 5 sources within a single ecosystem (e.g., Jewish outlets, topic-specific subreddits or social media groups), no mainstream pickup
      • moderate: At least 5 sources across ecosystems, including at least two with general public reach (e.g., LAist, KTLA, local media)
      • high: At least 5 sources with cross-ecosystem mainstream pickup (e.g., LAT, NYT, CNN) OR viral social media (≥100k views)
  3. Critical clarifications:
    • Only count sources published within 14 days of the incident
    • Do NOT count mentions of media coverage in other sources
    • Do NOT count retrospective coverage that uses the incident as context
    • ONLY use sources provided directly in file format
    • If there is ambiguity about threshold requirements, DEFAULT to the lower level
  4. Required justification format:
    • Begin with: “Following the media_coverage_level protocol…”
    • List EVERY qualifying source counted toward the threshold
    • Specify which sources have “general public reach” and why
    • Document the exact number of sources identified
    • Explain why the chosen level was assigned based on the count and criteria

Verification checklist:

location

Definition: Location where the incident took place
→ on-campus, off-campus, other

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

policy_status

Definition: Whether the incident violated or complied with a campus policy in effect at the time (e.g., TPM, student conduct, anti-discrimination), properly balanced against UCLA’s obligations as a state actor bound by First Amendment principles
→ compliant, violated, combination, unclear, contested

Coding Protocol:

  1. MANDATORY PRE-CODING STEPS:
    • You MUST read POL-001, POL-002, POL-003, and PHIL-001 IN THEIR ENTIRETY
    • Review PHIL-001 sections on “Free Speech 101,” “Myth Busting,” and “What’s UCLA to Do”
    • Flag any coding attempt where you have not completely reviewed these documents
    • Acknowledge: UCLA as a state actor is bound by First Amendment principles
    • Understand that content-based speech restrictions face strict scrutiny
    • Note the distinction between protected offensive speech and unprotected categories
  2. DECISION HIERARCHY:
    • IF administration explicitly states a policy was violated AND there is no available information stating that offending behavior was later brought into compliance:
      • Code as violated
      • Cite the exact statement with source ID

    • IF NO explicit statement of violation exists:

      A. TRUE THREATS/UNPROTECTED SPEECH TEST:

      • Review PHIL-001 section on “categorical exceptions” to free speech
      • Check if incident involves true threats, fighting words, or harassment that substantially interferes with educational access, etc.
      • If incident clearly falls into one of these explicitly unprotected categories → code as violated
      • Provide direct quotes from PHIL-001 showing why the speech is categorically unprotected

      B. FIRST AMENDMENT BALANCING TEST:

      • Even if the incident appears to conflict with policy language, it MUST be weighed against UCLA’s state actor status
      • Reminder: Offensive, antisemitic, or racist content is generally protected speech unless it rises to unprotected categories
      • Administrative condemnation does NOT automatically mean policy violation
      • When ambiguous: lean toward protecting speech in accordance with constitutional principles

      C. DEFAULT DIRECTION:

      • In cases of doubt about whether offensive speech is unprotected
      • Code as compliant rather than violated
      • Explain balancing test in justification
    • IF The incident involved both compliance and violation (e.g., a protest began in violation of TPM policy but later moved to a location consistent with university protest guidelines)
      • Code as combination
      • Provide direct quotes from statements and/or sources that indicate the incident was both compliant with and in violation of policy
    • IF insufficient information exists to determine whether a policy was violated or which policy applies
      • Code as unclear
      • Comment on whether it was incident details or applicable policy information that was insufficient to code this variable
    • IF the administration and participants explicitly disagree about whether a policy was violated OR the policy’s applicability or enforcement was formally challenged OR different administrative sources contradict each other regarding violation status
      • code as contested
      • Document the competing claims with direct quotes
  3. JUSTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:
    • Begin with: “After reviewing POL-001, POL-002, POL-003, and PHIL-001 in their entirety…”
    • Include direct quotes from relevant policies AND PHIL-001 regarding free speech protections
    • Provide explicit First Amendment balancing analysis
    • Explain clearly why the incident does or does not qualify as unprotected speech
    • Acknowledge the high bar for speech restriction at public universities

Verification checklist:

policy_violation_type

Definition: What type of formal university policy was violated, if any
→ TPM_policy, student_conduct, anti_discrimination, non-affiliate, combination, none

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

norm_violation_type

Definition: What type of institutional or ethical norm was undermined, regardless of policy status
→ bias/discrimination, admin_policy_failure, student_policy_failure, resource_misuse, community_harm, individual_harm, none, multiple

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

ORDINAL CATEGORICAL VARIABLES

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

severity_score

Definition: The extent of OBSERVABLE direct physical harm, credible risk, or disruption caused by escalation to individuals, campus operations, or institutional safety at the time the incident occurred
→ low, moderate, elevated, high

Special Protocol for severity_score:

  1. FOUNDATIONAL DEFINITION:
    • Severity Score measures: The extent of OBSERVABLE direct physical harm, credible risk, or disruption caused by escalation to individuals, campus operations, or institutional safety at the time the incident occurred.
  2. OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS:
    • “Observable” means documented in primary sources (contemporaneous, direct records), not secondary sources
    • “Disruption” means measurable interference with normal university operations
    • “Credible risk” means a specific threat with reasonable likelihood of execution
    • “Primary sources” are contemporaneous, direct, or verifiable records of harm or disruption such as police reports, medical records, Daily Bruin coverage, and video evidence
    • “Secondary sources” include retrospective analyses or interpretive materials, such as lawsuits, OCR complaints, task force reports, or social media commentary (do not define severity but may clarify ambiguous cases, reveal overlooked harm, or flag contested narratives)—use them to supplement—not override—primary evidence
  3. VERIFICATION CHECKLIST: Before assigning a severity score, explicitly verify and document the presence or absence of:
    • Direct physical harm to persons (documented injuries or medical attention)
    • Credible risk to physical safety (specific threats with likelihood of execution)
    • Disruption to campus operations (measurable interference with university functions)
    • Disruption to institutional safety (required security response)
    • Escalation that affected individuals, operations, or safety (documented intervention)
  4. DECISION CRITERIA:
    • Code as low if:
      • No credible threat or physical harm
      • Any disturbance was brief, self-resolving, and required no monitoring or intervention
    • Code as moderate if:
      • Some disruption or localized risk occurred
      • Examples: confrontations, non-credible threats, brief space occupation, or minor property damage
      • May have prompted a police or admin response but no formal escalation (no dispersal order, use of force, arrest)
    • Code as elevated if:
      • Institutional escalation without confirmed harm
      • Examples: dispersal order issued, event shutdown, police mobilization—but no arrests, injuries, or force used
      • Admin or police took significant preventive action despite limited or ambiguous actual risk
    • Code as high if:
      • Clear immediate harm or serious disruption
      • Examples: physical violence, credible threats, arrests, dispersal orders with enforcement, or hospitalization
      • Triggered formal institutional responses: investigation, discipline, shutdown, or use of force
  5. CRITICAL REMINDER:
    • Subjective feelings of fear, psychological distress, or offensive content are NOT sufficient for higher severity scores unless they resulted in measurable disruption to campus operations or institutional safety.
    • Nature of administrative action (whether it is a “strong” reaction, the “wrong” reaction, or none at all) is also irrelevant to severity level
  6. REQUIRED JUSTIFICATION FORMAT:
    • Begin with: “Based on the verification checklist, this incident shows [elements present/not present]…”
    • Provide direct evidence for any elements present with quotes from primary sources
    • If applicable, supplement primary source evidence with quotes from secondary sources
    • Explicitly explain why the incident does NOT qualify for higher severity levels

Required Verification:

police_involvement

Definition: The extent of police involvement
→ none, intervention, escalation, arrest

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

QUANTITATIVE VARIABLES

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

latency_days

Definition: Number of days between the earliest incident date stated by a source and the earliest admin response date, as defined by the time stamp in any ADM source → Integer

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

STRUCTURED QUALITATIVE VARIABLES - PART 1

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

administrative_tone

Definition: Language tone used by administration
→ conciliatory, neutral, dismissive, condemnation, combination

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

administrative_positioning

Definition: How the incident was framed in administrative narratives
→ civil_rights, safety/security_threat, alleged_policy_violation, none, n/a

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

media_positioning

Definition: How the incident was framed in media narratives from sources contributing to media_coverage_level
→ group_targeting, security_failure, student_endangerment, impermissible_behavior, reputational, political_strategy, financial_impact, unclear, n/a

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

STRUCTURED QUALITATIVE VARIABLES - PART 2

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

actor_tone, target_tone

Definition: How students speak (attitude/rhetorical style) or depict an incident; captures emotional flavor rather than narrative framing or strategy.
→ accusatory, fear/distress, defensive, defiant, mobilizing/escalatory, conciliatory, solidarity, combination

Special Protocol for actor_tone and target_tone:

  1. COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE REVIEW (MANDATORY):
    • You MUST examine ALL sources that contain statements or reactions from the relevant group (actor or target)
    • Review ALL sources before determining tone:
      • ALL social media (SOC sources)
      • ALL news quotes and interviews
      • ALL official statements
      • ALL documented reactions in any format
    • Do NOT code tone until completing a full review of ALL available sources
  2. QUANTITATIVE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
    • When different tones appear across sources:
      • Count the number of distinct references for each tone category
      • Explicitly document the count for each tone identified
      • Code the predominant tone ONLY if it represents at least 60% of all tone references
      • Otherwise, code as ‘combination’ and specify which tones are present
    • Example calculation:
      • 5 references to ‘fear/distress’ out of 8 total references = 62.5% → code as ‘fear/distress’
      • 4 references to ‘accusatory’ out of 7 total references = 57% → code as ‘combination’
  3. WEIGHTING AND EVALUATION RULES:
    • Statements from formal organization representatives count as equal weight to multiple individual statements
    • Consider both frequency AND intensity of tone indicators
    • Official statements (e.g., organization press releases) count as ONE source but carry equal weight
    • Multiple similar statements from individuals carry cumulative weight
    • Evaluate intensity based on:
      • Language strength and emotional content
      • Context and prominence
      • Directness of expression
  4. TONE CATEGORIES:
    • Code as accusatory if:
      • Attributes blame, ignorance, or wrongdoing to another group or actor with moral judgment or indignation
      • E.g., “Admin has failed us,” “They are complicit,” “It was disheartening to see my fellow students defending that”
    • Code as fear/distress if:
      • Emphasizes emotional vulnerability, fear, or a sense of being targeted, unsafe, or endangered
      • E.g., “We no longer feel safe on campus”, “We were physically threatened”
    • Code as defensive if:
      • Justifies or defends the group’s own actions or counters criticisms
      • E.g., “We acted within policy…”, “This was misrepresented…”
    • Code as defiant if:
      • Rejects authority or consequences with pride, disdain, or resistance
      • E.g., “You’re fascist aggressors,” “Don’t obey in advance”
    • Code as mobilizing/escalatory if:
      • Urges greater collective action, confrontation, or disruption; a call to action, a threat to escalate, or both
      • E.g., “Walkout at noon!”, “If they don’t agree, we’ll shut it down!”
    • Code as conciliatory if:
      • Seeks compromise, mutual understanding, or de-escalation
      • E.g., “We welcome dialogue,” “Let’s find common ground”
    • Code as solidarity if:
      • Expresses emotional identification with or support for another group’s cause
      • E.g., “We stand with…”
    • Code as combination if:
      • Multiple distinct tones present without any reaching 60% threshold
  5. REQUIRED JUSTIFICATION FORMAT:
    • Begin with: “I reviewed the following sources containing [actor/target] tone indicators: [list ALL sources]”
    • Include quantitative methodology: “Found approximately X references to [tone1], Y references to [tone2], etc. This represents [calculate percentage]% of all tone references”
    • For EACH tone identified, provide at least TWO specific quotations: “SOURCE-XXX: "[exact quote demonstrating tone]"”
    • Include weighting explanation: “Formal organization statements were weighted as: [explanation]”
    • End with decision explanation: “[Selected tone] represents the predominant tone because [explanation]” OR “No single tone reaches the 60% threshold, so coding as ‘combination’ of [list tones]”

Required Verification:

actor_positioning, target_positioning

Definition: How students frame the incident’s meaning, goals, or implications; captures strategic narrative rather than emotional tone
→ rights-based, oversight_failure, policy_violation_defense, financial_fairness, combination, none, n/a

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

UNSTRUCTURED QUALITATIVE VARIABLES

⚠️ BEFORE CODING THESE VARIABLES:

notes

Definition: Freeform summary or contextual annotation
→ No predefined values

Coding Protocol:

Required Verification:

DERIVED VARIABLES

admin_response_level (Derived)

Definition: Strength or adequacy of the administrative response
→ none, minimal, adequate, strong

Coding Protocol:

admin_response_level admin_response_type accountability_follow_up admin_support_offered
none none n/a n/a
minimal general_statement none none
adequate incident_specific proposed Any one of: admin_support_offered
strong incident_specific proposed Any two or more of: admin_support_offered

Required Verification:

OUTPUT FORMAT

For each incident, produce a YAML file following this exact structure:

incident_id: INC-XXX
date: YYYY-MM-DD
source_ids: [SOURCE-001, SOURCE-002, ...]
keywords: [keyword1, keyword2, ...]

variable_name:
  value: selected_value
  justification: "SOURCE-001: \"Exact quote from source about THIS incident.\" SOURCE-002: \"Another relevant exact quote.\" Based on these quotes, the evidence indicates that [interpretation]."
  sources: [SOURCE-001, SOURCE-002, ...]

# For media_coverage_level specifically
media_coverage_level:
  value: selected_level
  justification: "Following the media_coverage_level protocol: SOURCE-001: \"Exact quote about coverage.\" I have identified exactly X qualifying sources: [list each source]. Of these, the following have general public reach: [name specific sources and explain why]. This meets the criteria for [selected_level] because [explain how thresholds are met]."
  sources: [SOURCE-001, SOURCE-002, ...]

# For policy_status specifically
policy_status:
  value: selected_value
  justification: "After reviewing POL-001, POL-002, POL-003, and PHIL-001 in their entirety, I have determined that this incident [value]
     POL-XXX: \"[Exact quote from relevant policy document]\"
     PHIL-001: \"[Exact quote about free speech protections and categorical exceptions]\"
     [If administrative statement exists]: ADM-XXX: \"[Exact quote showing administrative position]\"
     Weighing the [nature of speech/conduct] against UCLA's obligations as a state actor bound by the First Amendment, this incident [does/does not] rise to the level of unprotected speech because [specific analysis referencing categorical exceptions in PHIL-001]. [Explain why the speech does/doesn't meet specific unprotected categories]."
   sources: [POL-XXX, PHIL-001, other relevant sources]

severity_score:
  value: [low/moderate/elevated/high]
  justification: "Based on the verification checklist, this incident shows [presence/absence of each element]. 
  
  SOURCE-XXX: \"[Exact quote documenting presence/absence of physical harm]\"
  SOURCE-XXX: \"[Exact quote documenting presence/absence of credible risk]\"
  SOURCE-XXX: \"[Exact quote documenting presence/absence of disruption]\"
  
  This incident does not qualify for [higher level] because [explicit explanation of why higher threshold not met]. The incident is properly classified as [selected level] because [specific criteria met]."
  sources: [SOURCE-XXX, SOURCE-XXX]

actor_tone:  # or target_tone
  value: [selected_tone or 'combination']
  justification: "I reviewed the following sources containing [actor/target] tone indicators: [list ALL sources]. 
  
  Found approximately X references to [tone1] (X%), Y references to [tone2] (Y%), etc.
  
  Evidence for [tone1]:
  SOURCE-XXX: \"[exact quote demonstrating tone]\"
  SOURCE-XXX: \"[second exact quote demonstrating tone]\"
  
  Evidence for [tone2] (if applicable):
  SOURCE-XXX: \"[exact quote demonstrating tone]\"
  SOURCE-XXX: \"[second exact quote demonstrating tone]\"
  
  [If organization representatives]: The statement from [organization] was weighted equally to individual statements because [explanation].
  
  Based on this quantitative analysis, [selected_tone] represents [X%] of tone references, [meeting/not meeting] the 60% threshold for predominant tone. Therefore, the appropriate coding is [selected value]."
  sources: [list ALL sources reviewed for tone]

# For insufficient evidence cases
insufficient_variable:
  value: "insufficient evidence"
  justification: "After examining all provided sources, no content specifically addressing this incident was found regarding this variable."
  sources: []

notes:
  value: "Concise summary of the incident including key details established by the sources."

FINAL VERIFICATION

Before submitting any incident coding, complete this final verification:

  1. General Compliance:
    • I have included VERBATIM quotes specifically about THIS incident for each claim
    • ALL quotes are properly attributed to specific source IDs exactly as provided
    • I have verified each quote refers to THIS incident (not general patterns)
    • I have RE-VERIFIED all quotes against original sources
    • My interpretation follows, not precedes, direct evidence
    • I have EXCLUDED information about similar incidents or general conditions
    • I have used ONLY source IDs explicitly provided in materials
    • I have verified all source IDs exist in the provided materials
  2. Variable-Specific Checks:
    • I have completed all required verification checklists for special variables
    • I have applied the specific protocols for each variable type
    • I have maintained consistency between related variables
    • I have formatted justifications according to variable-specific requirements
  3. Output Format:
    • My YAML follows the exact structure shown in the output format section
    • All variable names are correctly spelled and formatted
    • All justifications begin with direct quotes from sources
    • All sources are properly listed in the sources field for each variable