Abstract
No public abstract is available from the verified source records.
Contact and support
Need help, have a question, or want to contact the ResearchHub team?
© 2026 ResearchHub. Built for responsible scholarly connection.
Privacy-aware community infrastructureGraeme Horsman
Abstract
Authors
Institutions
No ROR-resolved institution is linked to this work yet.
Provenance
crossref
Confidence 100%
unpaywall
Confidence 95%
datacite
Confidence 0%
No local reference links have been materialized yet.
No local citing links have been materialized yet.
Unresolved referenced work
Kept as external metadata until matched
Unresolved referenced work
Kept as external metadata until matched
The LR does not exist
10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.005 · 2016
Error, uncertainty, and loss in digital evidence
2002
Clearly conveying digital forensic results
10.1016/j.diin.2018.03.001 · 2018
Admitting to uncertainty in the LR
10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.005 · 2016
Unresolved referenced work
2015
Unresolved referenced work
Kept as external metadata until matched
Unresolved referenced work
Kept as external metadata until matched
Framework for Reliable Experimental Design (FRED): a research framework to ensure the dependable interpretation of digital data for digital forensics
10.1016/j.cose.2017.11.009 · 2018
Formalising investigative decision making in digital forensics: proposing the digital evidence reporting and decision support (DERDS) framework
10.1016/j.diin.2019.01.007 · 2019
Raiders of the lost artefacts: championing the need for digital forensics research
2019
A case-based reasoning method for locating evidence during digital forensic device triage
10.1016/j.dss.2014.01.007 · 2014
Forensic scientists' conclusions: how readable are they for non-scientist report-users?
10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.026 · 2013
Likelihood ratio as weight of forensic evidence: a closer look
2017
Unresolved referenced work
1964
January. Reasoning about evidence using Bayesian networks
2008
Unresolved referenced work
2008
The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect
10.1037/lhb0000027 · 2013
The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfindershear
10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1 · 2009
Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems
10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.002 · 2011
What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be?
10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.007 · 2016
Unresolved referenced work
Kept as external metadata until matched
Unresolved referenced work
2009
The likelihood ratio as value of evidence—more than a question of numbers
10.1093/lpr/mgs019 · 2012
Scale of conclusions for the value of evidence
10.1093/lpr/mgr020 · 2011
An argument against presenting interval quantifications as a surrogate for the value of evidence
10.1016/j.scijus.2016.07.001 · 2016
Quantifying likelihood in digital forensic investigations
2014
November. Quantification of digital Forensic hypotheses using probability theory
2013
November. How to be a digital forensic expert witness
2005
Unresolved referenced work
Kept as external metadata until matched
Unresolved referenced work
Kept as external metadata until matched
Rules of professional responsibility in digital forensics: a comparative analysis
2015
Unresolved referenced work
2013
Meetings between experts: a route to simpler, fairer trials?
10.1016/j.diin.2008.11.002 · 2009
Certification, registration and assessment of digital forensic experts: the UK experience
10.1016/j.diin.2011.06.001 · 2011
Unresolved referenced work
2018
Discussion paper: hard cases make bad law:Reactions to R v. T
10.1093/lpr/mgs020 · 2012
Lay understanding of forensic statistics: evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents
10.1037/lhb0000134 · 2015
No additional external references are available.