1,720,959 research outputs found
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
The Automated Fourth Amendment
No full textCourts routinely defer to police officer judgments in reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. Increasingly, though, police officers outsource these threshold judgments to new forms of technology that purport to predict and detect crime and identify those responsible. These policing technologies automate core police determinations about whether crime is occurring and who is responsible.
Criminal procedure doctrine has failed to insist on some level of scrutiny of—or skepticism about—the reliability of this technology. Through an original study analyzing numerous state and federal court opinions, this Article exposes the implications of law enforcement’s reliance on these practices given the weighty interests that hang in the balance. After revealing the infirmity of current case law, this Article argues for a doctrinal shift to require assessment of policing technology reliability as part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness determinations and offers a framework that would allow courts to do so. Such a shift may prevent further erosion of privacy rights, particularly for Black, Latine, and other marginalized communities subjected to rampant Fourth Amendment abuses. Recognizing that even a necessary doctrinal shift cannot resolve every concern related to ever-growing police reliance on automated technologies to justify seizures and searches, this Article also goes beyond a focus on doctrine to recommend targeted policy interventions where Fourth Amendment intrusions do not result in criminal litigation
Recommended from our members
The Automated Fourth Amendment
No full textCourts routinely defer to police officer judgments in reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. Increasingly, though, police officers outsource these threshold judgments to new forms of technology that purport to predict and detect crime and identify those responsible. These policing technologies automate core police determinations about whether crime is occurring and who is responsible.
Criminal procedure doctrine has failed to insist on some level of scrutiny of—or skepticism about—the reliability of this technology. Through an original study analyzing numerous state and federal court opinions, this Article exposes the implications of law enforcement’s reliance on these practices given the weighty interests that hang in the balance. After revealing the infirmity of current case law, this Article argues for a doctrinal shift to require assessment of policing technology reliability as part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness determinations and offers a framework that would allow courts to do so. Such a shift may prevent further erosion of privacy rights, particularly for Black, Latine, and other marginalized communities subjected to rampant Fourth Amendment abuses. Recognizing that even a necessary doctrinal shift cannot resolve every concern related to ever-growing police reliance on automated technologies to justify seizures and searches, this Article also goes beyond a focus on doctrine to recommend targeted policy interventions where Fourth Amendment intrusions do not result in criminal litigation
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
The Automated Fourth Amendment
Get PDFCourts routinely defer to police officer judgments in reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. Increasingly, though, police officers outsource these threshold judgments to new forms of technology that purport to predict and detect crime and identify those responsible. These policing technologies automate core police determinations about whether crime is occurring and who is responsible.
Criminal procedure doctrine has failed to insist on some level of scrutiny of—or skepticism about—the reliability of this technology. Through an original study analyzing numerous state and federal court opinions, this Article exposes the implications of law enforcement’s reliance on these practices given the weighty interests that hang in the balance. After revealing the infirmity of current case law, this Article argues for a doctrinal shift to require assessment of policing technology reliability as part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness determinations and offers a framework that would allow courts to do so. Such a shift may prevent further erosion of privacy rights, particularly for Black, Latine, and other marginalized communities subjected to rampant Fourth Amendment abuses. Recognizing that even a necessary doctrinal shift cannot resolve every concern related to ever-growing police reliance on automated technologies to justify seizures and searches, this Article also goes beyond a focus on doctrine to recommend targeted policy interventions where Fourth Amendment intrusions do not result in criminal litigation
The Automated Fourth Amendment
Get PDFCourts routinely defer to police officer judgments in reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. Increasingly, though, police officers outsource these threshold judgments to new forms of technology that purport to predict and detect crime and identify those responsible. These policing technologies automate core police determinations about whether crime is occurring and who is responsible. Criminal procedure doctrine has failed to insist on some level of scrutiny of—or skepticism about—the reliability of this technology. Through an original study analyzing numerous state and federal court opinions, this Article exposes the implications of law enforcement’s reliance on these practices given the weighty interests that hang in the balance. After revealing the infirmity of current case law, this Article argues for a doctrinal shift to require assessment of policing technology reliability as part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness determinations and offers a framework that would allow courts to do so. Such a shift may prevent further erosion of privacy rights, particularly for Black, Latine, and other marginalized communities subjected to rampant Fourth Amendment abuses. Recognizing that even a necessary doctrinal shift cannot resolve every concern related to ever-growing police reliance on automated technologies to justify seizures and searches, this Article also goes beyond a focus on doctrine to recommend targeted policy interventions where Fourth Amendment intrusions do not result in criminal litigation
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
Junk Science at Sentencing
Get PDFJunk science used in criminal trials has contributed to hundreds of wrongful convictions. But the problem is much worse than that. Junk science does not only harm criminal defendants who go to trial, but also the overwhelming majority of defendants—over ninety-five percent—who plead guilty, skip trial, and proceed straight to sentencing.
Scientific, technical, and other specialized evidence (“STS evidence”) is used regularly, and with increasing frequency, at sentencing. Despite this, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its state equivalents—which help filter unreliable STS evidence at trials—do not apply at the critical sentencing stage. In fact, at sentencing, no meaningful admissibility standard guards against junk science deciding punishment. Over ninety-five percent of defendants, therefore, do not get the basic protection against faulty STS evidence that trial defendants get. This may result in harsher sentences based on junk science that has been admitted and considered without any screening or vetting.
This Article offers the first in-depth exploration of STS evidence at sentencing. It links two bodies of literature: the first analyzing the negative effects of junk science on the reliability of trials and the second arguing for extending procedural protections to sentencing. This Article builds upon these literatures by proposing an implementable mechanism for evaluating STS evidence at sentencing while retaining special protections for criminal defendants. The Article recommends that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (or its state analog) apply at sentencing to determine the admissibility of STS evidence offered in support of harsher punishment, but not to such evidence offered by defendants as mitigation
- …
