Modeling Verdict Outcomes Using Social Network Measures: The Watergate and Caviar Network Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modelling criminal trial verdict outcomes using social network measures is an emerging research area in quantitative criminology. Few studies have yet analyzed which of these measures are the most important for verdict modelling or which data classification techniques perform best for this application. To compare the performance of different techniques in classifying members of a criminal network, this article applies three different machine learning classifiers-Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes and Random Forest-with a range of social network measures and the necessary databases to model the verdicts in two real-world cases: the U.S. Watergate Conspiracy of the 1970's and the now-defunct Canada-based international drug trafficking ring known as the Caviar Network. In both cases it was found that the Random Forest classifier did better than either Logistic Regression or Naïve Bayes, and its superior performance was statistically significant. This being so, Random Forest was used not only for classification but also to assess the importance of the measures. For the Watergate case, the most important one proved to be betweenness centrality while for the Caviar Network, it was the effective size of the network. These results are significant because they show that an approach combining machine learning with social network analysis not only can generate accurate classification models but also helps quantify the importance social network variables in modelling verdict outcomes. We conclude our analysis with a discussion and some suggestions for future work in verdict modelling using social network measures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".