An Investigation of Top-down Vs. Bottom-up Processing in Post-Appellate Review of a Criminal Case
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Convicted persons who claim to be factually innocent frequently seek assistance from advocacy organizations that help investigate and establish actual innocence. This experiment examined the extent to which the knowledge that a case has passed pre-screening by an innocence project influences case reviewer judgment through top-down case processing. One hundred and fifty-nine participants role-played case reviewers, evaluated discovery for a criminal case, and evaluated the case. Prior to evaluation, half of the participants were instructed that the case was not previously adjudicated, whereas the other haft was told that the case was referred by an innocence advocacy organization. Instructions significantly influenced participant evaluations, suggesting the influence of top-down processing of case discovery. I. AN INVESTIGATION OF TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM-UP PROCESSING IN POST-APPELLATE REVIEW OF A CRIMINAL CASE The list of DNA-based exonerations in both Canada and the United States has continued to rise. To date, 273 individuals convicted of serious felonies (almost all rapes and murders) have been exonerated by DNA-based evidence. (1) Technological developments in DNA analysis were critical in confirming that erroneous convictions do occur in the criminal justice system. (2) DNA evidence, however, is not available in all criminal cases. Unfortunately, perpetrators do not always leave such evidence behind. Likewise, it is also unfortunate that not all wrongly convicted individuals have this form of exculpatory evidence available to assist in their defense. As one might imagine, the absence of DNA-based evidence exacerbates the uphill battle a wrongly convicted individual must go through in seeking to establish innocence. Despite these difficulties, increasing numbers of individuals with no DNA evidence have been exonerated in the last two decades by other types of evidence. Indeed, among the known exonerations, non-DNA exonerations now significantly outnumber the DNA exonerations. (3) A significant proportion--although not all--of these DNA and non-DNA exonerations have been achieved with the assistance of innocence advocacy groups, such as the Innocence Project. In recent decades, psychology-law researchers have made great strides in gaining a firmer understanding of both the causes and the consequences of wrongful convictions. Eyewitness identifications, (4) false confessions, (5) and jailhouse informant testimony (6) are but a few causes of wrongful convictions that have been subject to research. Researchers have also focused on identifying and exploring the consequences of wrongful convictions. Two examples of such consequences include the psychological consequences of wrongful convictions--both personal and familial (7)--and the crimes continuing to be committed by the true perpetrators. (8) One area of psychology-law research that remains unexplored is the review There has been no research investigating factors affecting the review Accordingly, we examine one such factor in the present study. The review, or exoneration, process refers to the process a convicted individual must go through in striving to establish innocence. Applicants must go through a number of antecedent processes before being eligible for the review First, the applicant must be convicted. Second, the applicant must subsequently exhaust all of his or her appeals. At this time, the applicant may or may not have applied for review on the grounds of miscarriage of justice, (9) or for a writ of habeas corpus (or other analogous state law-based post-conviction review procedure) in the United States. This process of applying for and seeking exoneration through ministerial review or post-conviction review is what we are referring to by the post-appellate process. Often, individuals applying for ministerial review or habeas corpus (or other post-conviction review process) have neither enough funds to hire legal representation, nor are they appointed legal assistance. …
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it