A Computational Decision-Tree Approach to Inform Post-Conviction Intake Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How might data analytic tools support intake decisions? When faced with a request for post-conviction assistance, innocence organizations’ intake staff must determine (1) whether the applicant can be shown to be factually innocent, and (2) whether the organization has the resources to help. These difficult categorization decisions are often made with incomplete information (Weintraub, 2022). We explore data from the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE; 4/26/2023, N = 3,284 exonerations) to inform such decisions, using patterns of features associated with successful prior cases. We first reproduce Berube et al. (2023)’s latent class analysis, identifying four underlying categories across cases. We then apply a second technique to increase transparency, decision tree analysis (WEKA, Frank et al., 2013). Decision trees can decompose complex patterns of data into ordered flows of variables, with the potential to guide intermediate steps that could be tailored to the particular organization’s limitations, areas of expertise, and resources.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".