Computational Inference for Evidential Reasoning in Support of Judicial Proof
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of judicial proof accrues evidence to confirm or deny hypotheses about world events relevant to a legal case. Software applications that seek to support this process must provide the user with sophisticated capabilities to manipulate evidential reasoning for legal cases. This requires computational techniques to represent the actors, entities, events, and context of world situations to structure alternative hypotheses interpreting evidence and to execute processes that draw inferences about the truth of hypotheses by assessing the relevance and weight of evidence to confirm or deny the hypotheses. Bayesian inference networks are combined with knowledge representations from artificial intelligence to structure and analyze evidential argumentation. The infamous 1994 Raddad murder trial in Nice, France provides a backdrop against which we illustrate the application of these techniques to evidential reasoning in support of judicial proof.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it