Tiered forensic methodology model for Digital Field Triage by non-digital evidence specialists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to budgetary constraints and the high level of training required, digital forensic analysts are in short supply in police forces the world over. This inevitably leads to a prolonged time taken between an investigator sending the digital evidence for analysis and receiving the analytical report back. In an attempt to expedite this procedure, various process models have been created to place the forensic analyst in the field conducting a triage of the digital evidence. By conducting triage in the field, an investigator is able to act upon pertinent information quicker, while waiting on the full report. The work presented as part of this paper focuses on the training of front-line personnel in the field triage process, without the need of a forensic analyst attending the scene. The premise has been successfully implemented within regular/non-digital forensics, i.e., crime scene investigation . In that field, front-line members have been trained in specific tasks to supplement the trained specialists. The concept of front-line members conducting triage of digital evidence in the field is achieved through the development of a new process model providing guidance to these members. To prove the model's viability, an implementation of this new process model is presented and evaluated. The results outlined demonstrate how a tiered response involving digital evidence specialists and non-specialists can better deal with the increasing number of investigations involving digital evidence.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".