MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124333472 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.2957

Earwitness Evidence: The Reliability of Voice Identifications

2016· article· en· W3124333472 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christopher Sherrin

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictionReliability (semiconductor)Eyewitness identificationPrincipal (computer security)Identification (biology)PsychologyEmpirical evidenceLawCriminologyActuarial sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomicsComputer securityEpistemologyData miningRelation (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While much attention has been paid to the frailties of eyewitness evidence, little attention has been given to the reliability of voice identification evidence, even though such “earwitness” evidence has been tendered in several wrongful conviction cases. The author reviews the empirical literature on the reliability of earwitness evidence and compares it to the principal factors used by Canadian criminal courts to assess earwitness testimony. The author concludes that earwitness evidence often can be quite unreliable and that the courts have not always properly assessed its reliability, offering some suggestions for reform.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207