Academic Evaluation

Islamophobia in the 2024 New York Mayoral Race

CID-0006 Center for Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) 2024 Incident Tracker Rubric v0.3.2

Abstract

This evaluation applies the CID Rubric v0.3.2 to Center for Study of Organized Hate (CSOH)'s 2024 report "Islamophobia in the 2024 New York Mayoral Race." The composite score of 5.3/10 (Deficient) reflects significant methodological deficiencies across multiple dimensions.

A full academic narrative for this report is in preparation. The dimensional analysis below is generated from scored data. See the Scoring Data view for the complete evidence trail.

Dimensional Analysis

D1

Definitional Precision

5/10

'Islamophobia' defined via example taxonomy without formal criteria

D2

Classification Rigor

5/10

Reliability testing absent — report acknowledges this explicitly

D3

Case Capture & Sampling

4/10

Closed-Universe Percentage Problem — no baseline, no symmetric monitoring

D4

Coverage Symmetry

5/10

No symmetric monitoring of other mayoral candidates

D5

Source Independence

6/10
D6

Verification Standards

5/10

No raw data access — social media posts not archived with permalinks

D7

Transparency & Governance

4/10

No funding disclosure — CSOH/IHL founder relationship not disclosed

D8

Counter-Evidence

6/10

Citation Ecosystem

Post-publication citation analysis tracks how this report's findings have been represented in subsequent publications, policy documents, media coverage, and advocacy materials. Entries marked as escalations indicate instances where the report was cited with scope or authority beyond what the original methodology establishes.

Escalation Patterns (1)

New York City political media Significant

Claimed scope: Documented prevalence and escalation of Islamophobia in the 2024 NYC mayoral race

Established scope: Internal composition statistics of pre-classified posts from one candidate's monitoring period

The 450% figure was reported in several outlets as a prevalence increase in political Islamophobia without disclosure that it is an internal ratio within already-classified content, not a rate against total discourse.

Additional Citations Tracked (1)

Academic researchers citing as precedent

Scope: Incident tracker that acknowledges absent reliability testing and provides no baseline comparator

Several subsequent monitoring studies cite this report as establishing methodology. The absence of a discourse baseline and the unverified inter-coder agreement are not noted in these citations.

Limitations of This Review

This evaluation assesses methodological rigor only. It does not evaluate the factual accuracy of individual claims or the existence of the phenomena the report describes. The CID Rubric v0.3.2 is designed for published research reports; application to certain document types requires adapted interpretation of specific dimensions. The CID has not independently investigated the organizations or individuals referenced in the report.