1,721,191 research outputs found
Introduction: Symposium on “Forensics, Statistics, and Law”
Get PDFTwenty-five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., that federal judges must conduct a scientific gatekeeping inquiry before admitting expert evidence.1 That ruling reshaped how judges evaluate scientific and expert evidence. In 2000, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was revised to comport with the Daubert ruling and many state courts adopted either the Daubert rule or the Federal Rule 702.2 The Daubert ruling coincided with a surge in scientific research relevant to criminal cases, including the development of modem DNA testing that both exonerated hundreds of individuals and provided more accurate evidence of guilt. 3 At the same time, the scientific communityThis is the introduction to a symposium published as Garrett, Brandon L. "Introduction: Symposium on “Forensics, Statistics, and Law”." Virginia Journal of Criminal Law 6, no. 2 (2018): 1. Posted with permission of CSAFE.</p
Forensic Fail?
Get PDFThis year marks the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which fundamentally reshaped how judges evaluate scientific and expert evidence.1 This volume of Judicature, with three wonderful contributions by Jay Koehler, Pate Skene, and an expert team led by William Thompson, comes at an ideal time to reconsider how successful the modern judicial approach to expert evidence has been. That approach is now reflected in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, revised in 2000 to comport with the Daubert ruling, and in state judicial rulings and state rules of evidence, which have followed suit in most statesThis is an article published as Garrett, Brandon L. "Introduction: Forensics Fail." Judicature 102, no. 1 (2018): 15. Posted with permission of CSAFE.</p
A Pioneer in Forensic Science Reform: The Work of Paul Giannelli
Get PDFFew can say, "I told you so," to our entire criminal justice system. Being right about what is wrong with the use of evidence in criminal cases is not a bad thing, but being able to influence the growing response to the crisis in modern forensics must be still more gratifying. Paul Giannelli is one of the rare law professors who was far ahead of his time in anticipating serious problems in the law that were not noticed and not carefully studied. Giannelli has helped to bring the field around to an understanding of the real scope of those problems and he has tirelessly worked to advance our knowledge in scholarship and in policymaking. If the law has not adequately corrected all of the problems that Giannelli continues to play a pioneering role in bringing to light, that is through no inadequacy of his own diagnoses and recommended cures. It is an honor to have the opportunity to contribute to this tribute honoring his work on the occasion of his retirement.This article is published as Garrett, Brandon L. "A Pioneer in Forensic Science Reform: The Work of Paul Giannelli." Case W. Res. L. Rev. 68 (2017): 681. Posted with permission of CSAFE.</p
Interpretable algorithmic forensics
Get PDFOne of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that are either too complex for people to understand or they simply conceal how it functions. In criminal cases, black box systems have proliferated in forensic areas such as DNA mixture interpretation, facial recognition, and recidivism risk assessments. The champions and critics of AI argue, mistakenly, that we face a catch 22: While black box AI is not understandable by people, they assume that it produces more accurate forensic evidence. In this Article, we question this assertion, which has so powerfully affected judges, policymakers, and academics. We describe a mature body of computer science research showing how “glass box” AI—designed to be interpretable—can be more accurate than black box alternatives. Indeed, black box AI performs predictably worse in settings like the criminal system. Debunking the black box performance myth has implications for forensic evidence, constitutional criminal procedure rights, and legislative policy. Absent some compelling—or even credible—government interest in keeping AI as a black box, and given the constitutional rights and public safety interests at stake, we argue that a substantial burden rests on the government to justify black box AI in criminal cases. We conclude by calling for judicial rulings and legislation to safeguard a right to interpretable forensic AI.This article is published as Garrett, Brandon L., and Cynthia Rudin. "Interpretable algorithmic forensics." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, no. 41 (2023): e2301842120. doi:10.1073/pnas.230184212. Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Posted with permission of CSAFE. This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND)
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Autopsy of a Crime Lab: Reporting, Testimony, and Quality Management
Get PDFOverview of IMPL I CSAFE research and Autopsy of a Crime Lab book.The following was presented at the 74th Annual Scientific Conference of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), Seattle, Washington, February 21-25, 2022. Posted with permission of CSAFE
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
