MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Racial Profiling’: DNA Forensic Procedures and Indigenous People in Victoria

2005· article· en· W2241494899 on OpenAlexaff
Greg Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Criminal Justice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsLibrary of Parliament
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic scienceIndigenousProfiling (computer programming)DNA profilingForensic geneticsCriminologyProject commissioningRacial profilingSociologyPublishingPolitical scienceHistoryLawBiologyComputer scienceDNAArchaeologyGeneticsMicrosatelliteRace (biology)Gender studiesEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous people in Australia now face new forms of potential over-representation in the country's criminal justice system after the passage of DNA forensic procedures legislation across Australian jurisdictions in the last three years. The potential impacts of the new DNA forensic procedures regime on Indigenous people, with a particular focus on Victoria; following passage of Victorian Crimes is described.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Issues in Criminal JusticeSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207