Evaluation of techniques to visualize fingerprints at different times on various soft surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fingerprints on different surfaces can be visualized using forensic investigation techniques. The research focuses on using five samples which contain unique physical and chemical qualities. A thumbprint deposition was made on the samples allowing the use of procedures to determine whether the resolution of the fingerprint ridges can be seen with the techniques being analyzed. The purpose of the research allows forensic scientists to use other techniques to photograph fingerprints on materials not commonly found at crime scenes for better identification of the individual. These instruments can be used instead of regular photography if they function better with the qualities of the material. The techniques tested include: gel lifters and the Video Spectral Comparator. All of the fingerprints were visualized by the VSC (before and after 2 weeks) using different light sources. The duration of the research was approximately 3 weeks. This allowed time for the surfaces to undergo any changes they might be capable of. Using the gel lifters, only three of the five surfaces allowed the prints to be lifted. However, the other two surfaces were not capable of being lifted producing no photographs with the VSC. In conclusion, the Video Spectral Comparator is a helpful aid in forensic investigations because it allows prints to be visualized quite well even though the software is mostly used in document evaluations. The gel lifters can only be used on surfaces which retain moisture. If the surface undergoes significant drying, the gel lifters will not be able to lift the fingerprint. However, both methods have been determined to be good for the visualization of fingerprints on various soft surfaces due to the retention of ridge detail.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".