SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making? · Study

ArticleShelves

ArticleWhat do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

Brett O. Gardner2019

Article2019

What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

Brett O. Gardner · Sharon Messenheimer Kelley · Daniel C. Murrie · Itiel E. Dror

37 citations·0/0 files stored·Science & Justice

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Legal processes and jurisprudence Criminal Law and Evidence Deception detection and forensic psychology

Abstract

No abstract was published for this record.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.

References

1977Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.2009Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009Strengthening forensic science in the United States : a path forward 2013The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions.2006Why Experts Make Errors 1997Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule.1997On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis.2005When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints

Cited by

2021Towards another paradigm for forensic science?2023Human Factors in Forensic Science 2021A hierarchy of expert performance as applied to forensic anthropology 2019Latent Print Proficiency Testing: An Examination of Test Respondents, Test‐Taking Procedures, and Test Characteristics 2020Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task‐Irrelevant Information?*†

Related works

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

2019How Cross‐Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors’ Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidencearticle · 8 shared references 2016Determining the Proper Evidentiary Basis for an Expert Opinionchapter · 8 shared references 2017Understanding and Mitigating Bias in Forensic Evaluation: Lessons from Forensic Sciencearticle · 7 shared references 2019A cultural change to enable improved decision-making in forensic science: A six phased approacharticle · 7 shared references 2017Addressing potential observer effects in forensic science: a perspective from a forensic scientist who uses linear sequential unmasking techniquesarticle · 7 shared references 2019Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic reviewreview · 6 shared references

Details

Year2019

Typearticle

Published2019-04-30

VenueScience & Justice

ISSN-L1355-0306

Languageen

Citations37

Files0 public / 0

ShelfLegal processes and jurisprudence

Identifiers

doi10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.005

openalex_workW2943047817

Links

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.

2021The biasing impact of irrelevant contextual information on forensic odontology radiograph matching decisions

2020Comment on “Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias”

2020Authors' Response