Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles) ISSN (Print) 1470-8396 - ISSN (Online) 1470-840X Published by Oxford University Press[419 journals]
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Kadane J. Pages: 37 - 43 Abstract: AbstractThis is a story of a lawsuit in Japan, about an alleged incident in America thirty years before. The focus of the analysis is comparing the rates of skips in ballpoint pen writing in a diary. Chernoff proposed several methods to address the comparison between the skips observed in different passages in the diary. I also give my own alternative analysis of the data. PubDate: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgab006 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Kadane J. Pages: 45 - 62 Abstract: AbstractFor Bayesian inference to be useful to a court, it is essential that the priors used should be neutral between the parties. ‘Neutrality’ reflects the idea that the fact-finder would want the statistical analyses to be fair to both parties. It is neither the same as the legal designation of which party has the burden of proof with respect to a particular matter, nor the standard of proof that must be met for that party to prevail. The recent case of Idaho v. Ish raises the question of how to find such priors, particularly in a doubly constrained 2 × 2 table with a zero. This article re-examines this issue. It also offers reflection on whether, given a zero in the table (which here means that all members of a particular race or sex are excluded from jury service), it matters how many are excluded. PubDate: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgab005 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 1 (2022)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Kane G; Kane E. Pages: 1 - 13 Abstract: Abstract OBJECTIVE In the 1990s as the legal blood alcohol limit for driving changed, validation studies reported the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) to be accurate at discriminating between Blood Alcohol Concentrations (BAC) above or below several legal limits: 0.10, 0.08, 0.05 and 0.04%. We investigated the contribution of the validation studies’ choice of accuracy statistic to the SFST’s reported accuracy. METHODS Using the data set from a commonly cited SFST validation study, we calculated the arrest accuracy and overall accuracy of the SFST at identifying BACs above or below 31 different target BACs from 0.00 to 0.30%. RESULTS At target BAC 0.30% the arrest accuracy of the SFST is 1%; at BAC 0.15%, 34%; at BAC 0.00%, 100%. The statistics arrest accuracy and overall accuracy describe the SFST, a test designed to identify changes caused by alcohol, as less accurate when the changes are severe, more accurate when changes are mild, and as 100% (arrest) and 93% (overall) accurate when there are no changes at all. CONCLUSION The statistics overall accuracy and arrest accuracy to not quantify the probability that impaired driving defendants who failed the SFST had an elevated BAC or were impaired. PubDate: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgab004 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 1 (2021)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Taroni F; Garbolino P, Bozza S, et al. Pages: 15 - 36 Abstract: AbstractWhat have been called ‘Bayesian confirmation measures’ or ‘evidential support measures’ offer a numerical expression for the impact of a piece of evidence on a judicial hypothesis of interest. The Bayes’ factor, sometimes simply called the ‘likelihood ratio’, represents the best measure of the value of the evidence. It satisfies a number of necessary conditions on normative logical adequacy. It is shown that the same cannot be said for alternative expressions put forward by some legal and forensic quarters. A list of desiderata are given that support the choice of the Bayes’ factor as the best measure for quantification of the value of evidence. PubDate: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgab007 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 1 (2021)
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
