liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 4 of 4
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Nordgaard, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, Statistics. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Swedish Police Author, National Forens Centre, SE-58194 Linkoping, Sweden.
    Editorial Material: Comment on Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty on the assessment of a likelihood ratio by Taroni F., Bozza S., Biederman A. and Aitken C.(1) in LAW PROBABILITY and RISK, vol 15, issue 1, pp 17-222016In: Law, Probability and Risk, ISSN 1470-8396, E-ISSN 1470-840X, Vol. 15, no 1, 17-22 p.Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    n/a

  • 2.
    Nordgaard, Anders
    Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Mathematics, Statistics .
    Quantifying experience in sample size determination for drug analysis2006In: Law, Probability and Risk, ISSN 1470-8396, E-ISSN 1470-840X, Vol. 4, no 4, 217-225 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

     Forensic analysis of pills suspected to contain illegal drugs is a time-consuming process; therefore, only a small sample from a seizure can be investigated. Notwithstanding, for drugs like Ecstacy, experience of forensic analysts indicates that a seizure of tablets usually consists either wholly of illicit drugs or no illegal substances at all. Consequently, it should be possible to draw fairly accurate conclusions based on very small samples, if all pills in a sample are indeed analytically identical. The forensic experience is modelled using a beta prior distribution for the proportion of drug-containing tablets in a seizure, and the sample size is determined so that a certain confidence statement can be made about this proportion. The parameters of the beta prior must be set to correspond with the experience, and this paper suggests a method for estimating these parameter values from a database comprising analyst reports representing the experience. The technique is applied to proportions of Ecstacy pills, and the results show that a sample of five pills is enough to state with a high level of confidence that at least half the tablets in a presumed Ecstacy seizure are genuine.

  • 3.
    Nordgaard, Anders
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, Statistics. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Ansell, Ricky
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Molecular genetics. Linköping University, The Institute of Technology.
    Drotz, Weine
    Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium.
    Jaeger, Lars
    Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium.
    Scale of conclusions for the value of evidence2012In: Law, Probability and Risk, ISSN 1470-8396, E-ISSN 1470-840X, Vol. 11, no 1, 1-24 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Scales of conclusion in forensic interpretation play an important role in the interface between scientific work at a forensic laboratory and different bodies of the jurisdictional system of a country. Of particular importance is the use of a unified scale that allows interpretation of different kinds of evidence in one common framework. The logical approach to forensic interpretation comprises the use of the likelihood ratio as a measure of evidentiary strength. While fully understood by forensic scientists, the likelihood ratio may be hard to interpret for a person not trained in natural sciences or mathematics. Translation of likelihood ratios to an ordinal scale including verbal counterparts of the levels is therefore a necessary procedure for communicating evidence values to the police and in the courtroom. In this paper, we present a method to develop an ordinal scale for the value of evidence that can be applied to any type of forensic findings. The method is built on probabilistic reasoning about the interpretation of findings and the number of scale levels chosen is a compromise between a pragmatic limit and mathematically well-defined distances between levels. The application of the unified scale is illustrated by a number of case studies.

  • 4.
    Nordgaard, Anders
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, Statistics. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Rasmusson, Birgitta
    Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium, Linköping.
    The likelihood ratio as value of evidence—more than a question of numbers2012In: Law, Probability and Risk, ISSN 1470-8396, E-ISSN 1470-840X, Vol. 11, 303-315 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The ability of the experienced forensic scientist to evaluate his or her results given the circumstances and propositions in a particular case and present this to the court in a clear and concise way is very important for the legal process. Court officials can neither be expected to be able to interpret scientific data, nor is it their task to do so (in our opinion). The duty of the court is rather to perform the ultimate evidence evaluation of all the information in the case combined, including police reports, statements from suspects and victims, witness reports forensic expert statements, etc. Without the aid of the forensic expert, valuable forensic results may be overlooked or misinterpreted in this process. The scientific framework for forensic interpretation stems from Bayesian theory. The resulting likelihood ratio, which may be expressed using a verbal or a numerical scale, compares how frequent are the obtained results given that one of the propositions holds with how frequent  they are given that the other proposition holds. A common misunderstanding is that this approach must be restricted to forensic areas such as DNA evidence where extensive background information is present in the form of comprehensive databases. In this article we argue that the approach with likelihood ratios is equally applicable in areas where the results rely on scientific background data combined with the knowledge and experience of the forensic scientist. In such forensic areas the scale of the likelihood ratio may be rougher compared to a DNA case, but the information that is conveyed by the likelihood ratio may     nevertheless be highly valuable for the court.

1 - 4 of 4
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf