MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963271088 · doi:10.1080/00085030.2019.1635736

CSFS Document Section Position on the Logical Approach to Evidence Evaluation and Corresponding Wording of Conclusions

2019· article· en· W2963271088 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R. Brent Ostrum

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicForensic and Genetic Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Cardiovascular Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)Position (finance)Logical analysisWork (physics)Scheme (mathematics)Position paperComputer scienceLogical conjunctionPsychologyEngineeringBusinessWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the position of the Document Section of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science (CSFS) regarding the use of an evaluation and reporting scheme often referred to as “the logical approach to evidence evaluation.” The section’s position is the logical approach to evidence evaluation and reporting, and is an appropriate and effective option for forensic document examination (FDE) work when implemented as outlined in this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0170.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0170.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.055

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society of Forensic Science JournalSame topicForensic and Genetic ResearchFrench-language works237,207