“You Can’t Get There from Here”: Use of Crime Scripts in Validity Testing
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 Purpose Detectives require analytic tools for the evaluation of deception, truth, and probability as police investigations need to assess the validity of suspect alibis, witness claims, victim allegations, and crime theory feasibility. Design For a crime to happen, a number of preliminary, intervening, and follow-up steps have to occur (e.g., finding a target, casing the bank, disposing of the body) along the dimensions of time, action, and geography (TAG). A crime script is a framework for dissecting this sequence. We propose their use for assessing the feasibility of a crime narrative. If the required phase shifts are improbable, or the order of actions illogical, then such an analysis warns investigators the TAG line is problematic. Findings Different case studies – a wrongful conviction, a murder trial, and a social media crime frenzy – are dissected and evaluated using crime scripts. The analyses reveal the improbability of all three crime narratives. Practical Implications Crime scripts are a useful thinking tool in criminal investigations. By deconstructing a crime into discrete temporal, geographic, and action phases, the viability of the overall narrative can be assessed. If a reasonable story cannot be constructed from the linked stages, there is a problem and further inquiries are required. Originality We propose a novel application of crime scripts to assist in police investigations. Despite the importance of validity and veracity assessment in this task, the area remains an understudied part of the criminal investigation process.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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