The use of mantrailing dogs in police and judicial context, future directions, limits and possibilities – A law review
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
The extraordinary capabilities of the canine nose are increasingly being used by law enforcement agencies in many countries to solve and reconstruct crimes. As a result, this type of forensic evidence can be and is still being challenged in the courts. So far, only a few publications have addressed the jurisprudence concerning mantrailing. We provide an overview of the jurisprudence in Germany and the USA, as well as insights from France. Relevant databases were searched, and 201 verdicts from Germany and 801 verdicts from the USA were analyzed. As a result, 16 published verdicts on the topic of mantrailing were found for Germany, and 44 verdicts since 2010 were found for the USA. The use of mantrailers and human scent discrimination dogs is employed in the investigative process in all three countries. The results derived from these methods are admissible as evidence in court, albeit not as sole evidence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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