Measuring party positions and issue salience from media coverage: Discussing and cross-validating new indicators

Recent studies have started to use media data to measure party positions and issue salience. The aim of this article is to compare and cross-validate this alternative approach with the more commonly used party manifestos, expert judgments and mass surveys. To this purpose, we present two methods to generate indicators of party positions and issue salience from media coverage: the core sentence approach and political claims analysis. Our cross-validation shows that with regard to party positions, indicators derived from the media converge with traditionally used measurements from party manifestos, mass surveys and expert judgments, but that salience indicators measure different underlying constructs. We conclude with a discussion of specific research questions for which media data offer potential advantages over more established methods.     

Analysing and exemplifying forensic conclusion criteria in terms of Bayesian decision theory

There is ongoing discussion in forensic science and the law about the nature of the conclusions reached based on scientific evidence, and on how such conclusions – and conclusion criteria – may be justified by rational argument. Examples, among others, are encountered in fields such as fingermarks (e.g., ‘this fingermark comes from Mr. A's left thumb’), handwriting examinations (e.g., ‘the questioned signature is that of Mr. A’), kinship analyses (e.g., ‘Mr. A is the father of child C’) or anthropology (e.g., ‘these are human remains'). Considerable developments using formal methods of reasoning based on, for example (Bayesian) decision theory, are available in literature, but currently such reference principles are not explicitly used in operational forensic reporting and ensuing decision-making. Moreover, applied examples, illustrating the principles, are scarce. A potential consequence of this in practical proceedings, and hence a cause of concern, is that underlying ingredients of decision criteria (such as losses quantifying the undesirability of adverse decision consequences), are not properly dealt with. There is merit, thus, in pursuing the study and discussion of practical examples, demonstrating that formal decision-theoretic principles are not merely conceptual considerations. Actually, these principles can be shown to underpin practical decision-making procedures and existing legal decision criteria, though often not explicitly apparent as such. In this paper, we will present such examples and discuss their properties from a Bayesian decision-theoretic perspective. We will argue that these are essential concepts for an informed discourse on decision-making across forensic disciplines and the development of a coherent view on this topic. We will also emphasize that these principles are of normative nature in the sense that they provide standards against which actual judgment and decision-making may be compared. Most importantly, these standards are justified independently of peoples' observable decision behaviour, and of whether or not one endorses these formal methods of reasoning.     

Can Jurors Recognize Missing Control Groups,Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological Science?

This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.     

Are expert penmen better than lay people at producing simulations of a model signature?

Although forensic signature examination is considered to be an identification science, it is a theoretical possibility that an individual may learn to forge another person's signature that is free from indications of simulation behaviours. This proposition was tested in a signature blind trial that was administered to 42 forensic handwriting examiners (FHEs). Participants expressed opinions on the authorship of 100 questioned signatures. The questioned signatures comprised a mixture of genuine, disguised and simulated signatures. Calligraphers formed part of the population of individuals who provided simulated signatures for the trial. A total of 3100 opinions were expressed of which 1254 were correct, 224 misleading and 1622 were inconclusive. Of the opinions expressed regarding the simulated signatures, the misleading score for the calligraphers' forgeries were approximately four times that of the lay persons' forgeries. These results provide strong evidence in support of the proposition that calligraphers are more skilled at simulating signatures than are lay people and can produce forgeries that some FHEs have difficulty detecting.     

司法鉴定结论使用中存在问题及解决途径——兼论我国诉讼专家辅助人制度的建构和完善

鉴定结论是司法工作中经常使用的重要证据形式,但在使用中存在诸多问题。这主要是因为当事人及其司法人员缺乏相应的科学技术知识和专门知识不能对鉴定结论进行科学评判。通过建构和完善我国诉讼中的专家辅助人制度就可以从根本上解决鉴定结论运用中存在的那些问题。     

Are facial image analysis experts any better than the general public at identifying individuals from CCTV images?

The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy and reliability of a small group of facial imagery experts, and compare their abilities with members of the general public, to ascertain whether or not training and experience will affect the ability to identify faces from CCTV footage.A number of clips from CCTV footage were utilised alongside face pools. The participants were asked to identify the actor in each CCTV clip and provide a level of confidence in the decision.The experts tested in this study were consistently better at identification than the public, with almost double the identification rates and half the errors. These results suggest that training and experience in facial analysis will produce more reliable and accurate facial identification.     

医疗诉讼证据问题研究

诉讼的关键在于证据本身及其规则。一般来说,解决医疗诉讼的方式是：通过对各种医疗诉讼证据的运用来认知医疗争议事实。从而认定争议事实的客观真相,以此分辨出这争议事实中的是与非。从而顺利解决该纠纷;当出现证据不足或者证据灭失而导致无法认识医疗争议的客观真相时,就只能依靠医疗诉讼中证明规则来解决纠纷。病历真实、客观的疑问以及鉴定结论对因果关系认定的困难,使案件事实真相的认定出现障碍。应该改革病历的制作与管理,实行专家证人制度。我国现行的医疗诉讼实行举证责任倒置的证据规则,使医疗诉讼迅速增加,致使医院因赔偿导致的费用支出也大幅上涨。从而导致医疗费用的上涨以及医方为了减少医疗诉讼而采取防御性医疗措施,进一步加深了医患双方之间的矛盾。应该对举证责任倒置规则有所限制。     

理解南海争端：来自非声索国专家的观点

本文总结了20多位来自非声索国专家在南海问题上的观点。大部分专家认为：应该依据国际法解决南海争端；美国在南海的利益包括商业自由航行、争端和平解决与美国海军搜集情报，在专属经济区内搜集情报活动不违反《公约》；九段线缺乏法律依据，且内涵不清，因而引发其他国家的担心；在南沙海域争端中，多边谈判是现实途径；海峡两岸最好还是各做各的；《南海各方行为宣言》约束力不够，应该尽快制定“南海行为准则”。     

论测谎结果的客观性及法律性

测谎结果应当具有证据的客观性,而从测谎结果的可容性来看,CPS鉴定结果在一定条件下不违背沉默权制度及法的伦理性。应当承认测谎结果的证据资格。