MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3125450080

An Investigation of Top-down Vs. Bottom-up Processing in Post-Appellate Review of a Criminal Case

2010· review· en· W3125450080 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew M. Smith, Brian L. Cutler, Keith A. Findley

Notice bibliographique

RevueAlbany law review · 2010
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueJury Decision Making Processes
Établissements canadiensOntario Tech University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInnocenceCriminal justiceCriminologyLawCriminal investigationCriminal caseBattleCriminal procedurePsychologyPolitical scienceHistory
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Convicted persons who claim to be factually innocent frequently seek assistance from advocacy organizations that help investigate and establish actual innocence. This experiment examined the extent to which the knowledge that a case has passed pre-screening by an innocence project influences case reviewer judgment through top-down case processing. One hundred and fifty-nine participants role-played case reviewers, evaluated discovery for a criminal case, and evaluated the case. Prior to evaluation, half of the participants were instructed that the case was not previously adjudicated, whereas the other haft was told that the case was referred by an innocence advocacy organization. Instructions significantly influenced participant evaluations, suggesting the influence of top-down processing of case discovery. I. AN INVESTIGATION OF TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM-UP PROCESSING IN POST-APPELLATE REVIEW OF A CRIMINAL CASE The list of DNA-based exonerations in both Canada and the United States has continued to rise. To date, 273 individuals convicted of serious felonies (almost all rapes and murders) have been exonerated by DNA-based evidence. (1) Technological developments in DNA analysis were critical in confirming that erroneous convictions do occur in the criminal justice system. (2) DNA evidence, however, is not available in all criminal cases. Unfortunately, perpetrators do not always leave such evidence behind. Likewise, it is also unfortunate that not all wrongly convicted individuals have this form of exculpatory evidence available to assist in their defense. As one might imagine, the absence of DNA-based evidence exacerbates the uphill battle a wrongly convicted individual must go through in seeking to establish innocence. Despite these difficulties, increasing numbers of individuals with no DNA evidence have been exonerated in the last two decades by other types of evidence. Indeed, among the known exonerations, non-DNA exonerations now significantly outnumber the DNA exonerations. (3) A significant proportion--although not all--of these DNA and non-DNA exonerations have been achieved with the assistance of innocence advocacy groups, such as the Innocence Project. In recent decades, psychology-law researchers have made great strides in gaining a firmer understanding of both the causes and the consequences of wrongful convictions. Eyewitness identifications, (4) false confessions, (5) and jailhouse informant testimony (6) are but a few causes of wrongful convictions that have been subject to research. Researchers have also focused on identifying and exploring the consequences of wrongful convictions. Two examples of such consequences include the psychological consequences of wrongful convictions--both personal and familial (7)--and the crimes continuing to be committed by the true perpetrators. (8) One area of psychology-law research that remains unexplored is the review There has been no research investigating factors affecting the review Accordingly, we examine one such factor in the present study. The review, or exoneration, process refers to the process a convicted individual must go through in striving to establish innocence. Applicants must go through a number of antecedent processes before being eligible for the review First, the applicant must be convicted. Second, the applicant must subsequently exhaust all of his or her appeals. At this time, the applicant may or may not have applied for review on the grounds of miscarriage of justice, (9) or for a writ of habeas corpus (or other analogous state law-based post-conviction review procedure) in the United States. This process of applying for and seeking exoneration through ministerial review or post-conviction review is what we are referring to by the post-appellate process. Often, individuals applying for ministerial review or habeas corpus (or other post-conviction review process) have neither enough funds to hire legal representation, nor are they appointed legal assistance. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,034
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,225
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,034
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,180

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0340,225
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,081
Tête enseignante GPT0,433
Écart entre enseignants0,352 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAlbany law reviewMême sujetJury Decision Making ProcessesTravaux en français237 207