MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289337667 · doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100278

Crime Script Sequencing: An optimal forensic combination for cold case analysis

2022· article· en· W4289337667 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueForensic Science International Synergy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic scienceCriminologyCriminal investigationCriminal behaviourData scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPsychologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criminal cases go cold when investigative leads or forensic testing does not lead to a successful arrest. In these cases, investigators are often keen to use novel methods to derive fresh ideas or insights. Recently, academics from a range of fields, including Psychology, Criminology, and Forensic Sciences have developed a range of new methods and tests to assist with police investigations. The current paper outlines a novel approach to assisting with police cold case investigations: Crime Script Sequencing. The new method combines two leading temporal methods, Crime Script Analysis and Behaviour Sequence Analysis. A real-world cold case, the bombing of Canadian Pacific Airlines Fight 21, is presented and analysed using Crime Script Sequencing to offer readers a guide of how to use the method for other investigations. Impacts, insights, and potential future developments of the method are outlined.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.307 · 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