More Like this

1. Southern Hemisphere Pressure Relationships during the 20th Century—Implications for Climate Reconstructions and Model Evaluation

   https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9100413  

   Clark, Logan; Fogt, Ryan (October 2019, Geosciences)

   The relationship between Southern Hemisphere middle and high-latitude regions has made it possible to generate observationally-based Antarctic pressure reconstructions throughout the 20th century, even though routinely collected observations for this continent only began around 1957. While nearly all reconstructions inherently assume stability in these relationships through time and in the absence of direct observations, this stationarity constraint can be fully tested in a model setting. Seasonal pressure reconstructions based on the principal component regression (PCR) method spanning 1905–2013 are done entirely within the framework of the Community Atmospheric version 5 (CAM5) model in this study in order to evaluate this assumption, test the robustness of the PCR procedure for Antarctic pressure reconstructions and to evaluate the CAM5 model. Notably, the CAM5 reconstructions outperformed the observationally-based reconstruction in every season except the austral summer. Other tests indicate that relationships between Antarctic pressure and pressure across the Southern Hemisphere remain stable throughout the 20th century in CAM5. In contrast, 20th century reanalyses all display marked changes in mid-to-high latitude pressure relationships in the early 20th century. Overall, comparisons indicate both the CAM5 model and the pressure reconstructions evaluated here are reliable estimates of Antarctic pressure throughout the 20th century, with the largest differences between the two resulting from differences in the underlying reconstruction predictor networks and not from changes in the model experiments. 

   more » « less
2. Visualizing and Reasoning about Presentable Digital Forensic Evidence with Knowledge Graphs

   Weifeng Xu and Dianxiang Xu (August 2022, the 19th IEEE Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST’22))

   Making digital evidence presentable is hard due to its intangible and complex nature and the variety of targeted audiences. In this paper, we present Digital Forensic Knowledge Graph (DFKG) for visualizing and reasoning about digital forensic evidence. We first describe the criteria of presentable evidence to ensure the authenticity, integrity, validity, credibility, and relevance of evidence. Then we specify DFKG to capture presentable forensic evidence from three perspectives: (1) the background of a criminal case, (2) the reconstructed timeline, and (3) the verifiable digital evidence related to the criminal activity timeline. We also present a case study to illustrate the DFKG-based approach. 

   more » « less
3. Anthropogenic Impacts on Atmospheric Carbonyl Sulfide Since the 19th Century Inferred From Polar Firn Air and Ice Core Measurements

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033074  

   Aydin, M.; Britten, G. L.; Montzka, S. A.; Buizert, C.; Primeau, F.; Petrenko, V.; Battle, M. B.; Nicewonger, M. R.; Patterson, J.; Hmiel, B.; et al (August 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres)

   Abstract Carbonyl sulfide (COS) was measured in firn air collected during seven different field campaigns carried out at four different sites in Greenland and Antarctica between 2001 and 2015. A Bayesian probabilistic statistical model is used to conduct multisite inversions and to reconstruct separate atmospheric histories for Greenland and Antarctica. The firn air inversions cover most of the 20th century over Greenland and extend back to the 19th century over Antarctica. The derived atmospheric histories are consistent with independent surface air time series data from the corresponding sites and the Antarctic ice core COS records during periods of overlap. Atmospheric COS levels began to increase over preindustrial levels starting in the 19th century, and the increase continued for much of the 20th century. Atmospheric COS peaked at higher than present‐day levels around 1975 CE over Greenland and around 1987 CE over Antarctica. An atmosphere/surface ocean box model is used to investigate the possible causes of observed variability. The results suggest that changes in the magnitude and location of anthropogenic sources have had a strong influence on the observed atmospheric COS variability. 

   more » « less
4. Juror Scientific Reasoning Skills and Discussion of Scientific Evidence During Deliberation

   McCowan, K. (March 2020, Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract We investigate the link between individual differences in science reasoning skills and mock jurors’ deliberation behavior; specifically, how much they talk about the scientific evidence presented in a complicated, ecologically valid case during deliberation. Consistent with our preregistered hypothesis, mock jurors strong in scientific reasoning discussed the scientific evidence more during deliberation than those with weaker science reasoning skills. Summary With increasing frequency, legal disputes involve complex scientific information (Faigman et al., 2014; Federal Judicial Center, 2011; National Research Council, 2009). Yet people often have trouble consuming scientific information effectively (McAuliff et al., 2009; National Science Board, 2014; Resnick et al., 2016). Individual differences in reasoning styles and skills can affect how people comprehend complex evidence (e.g., Hans, Kaye, Dann, Farley, Alberston, 2011; McAuliff & Kovera, 2008). Recently, scholars have highlighted the importance of studying group deliberation contexts as well as individual decision contexts (Salerno & Diamond, 2010; Kovera, 2017). If individual differences influence how jurors understand scientific evidence, it invites questions about how these individual differences may affect the way jurors discuss science during group deliberations. The purpose of the current study was to examine how individual differences in the way people process scientific information affects the extent to which jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberations. Methods We preregistered the data collection plan, sample size, and hypotheses on the Open Science Framework. Jury-eligible community participants (303 jurors across 50 juries) from Phoenix, AZ (Mage=37.4, SD=16.9; 58.8% female; 51.5% White, 23.7% Latinx, 9.9% African-American, 4.3% Asian) were paid $55 for a 3-hour mock jury study. Participants completed a set of individual questionnaires related to science reasoning skills and attitudes toward science prior to watching a 45-minute mock armed-robbery trial. The trial included various pieces of evidence and testimony, including forensic experts testifying about mitochondrial DNA evidence (mtDNA; based on Hans et al. 2011 materials). Participants were then given 45 minutes to deliberate. The deliberations were video recorded and transcribed to text for analysis. We analyzed the deliberation content for discussions related to the scientific evidence presented during trial. We hypothesized that those with stronger scientific and numeric reasoning skills, higher need for cognition, and more positive views towards science would discuss scientific evidence more than their counterparts during deliberation. Measures We measured Attitudes Toward Science (ATS) with indices of scientific promise and scientific reservations (Hans et al., 2011; originally developed by the National Science Board, 2004; 2006). We used Drummond and Fischhoff’s (2015) Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS) to measure scientific reasoning skills. Weller et al.’s (2012) Numeracy Scale (WNS) measured proficiency in reasoning with quantitative information. The NFC-Short Form (Cacioppo et al., 1984) measured need for cognition. Coding We identified verbal utterances related to the scientific evidence presented in court. For instance, references to DNA evidence in general (e.g. nuclear DNA being more conclusive than mtDNA), the database that was used to compare the DNA sample (e.g. the database size, how representative it was), exclusion rates (e.g. how many other people could not be excluded as a possible match), and the forensic DNA experts (e.g. how credible they were perceived). We used word count to operationalize the extent to which each juror discussed scientific information. First we calculated the total word count for each complete jury deliberation transcript. Based on the above coding scheme we determined the number of words each juror spent discussing scientific information. To compare across juries, we wanted to account for the differing length of deliberation; thus, we calculated each juror’s scientific deliberation word count as a proportion of their jury’s total word count. Results On average, jurors discussed the science for about 4% of their total deliberation (SD=4%, range 0-22%). We regressed proportion of the deliberation jurors spend discussing scientific information on the four individual difference measures (i.e., SRS, NFC, WNS, ATS). Using the adjusted R-squared, the measures significantly accounted for 5.5% of the variability in scientific information deliberation discussion, SE=0.04, F(4, 199)=3.93, p=0.004. When controlling for all other variables in the model, the Scientific Reasoning Scale was the only measure that remained significant, b=0.003, SE=0.001, t(203)=2.02, p=0.045. To analyze how much variability each measure accounted for, we performed a stepwise regression, with NFC entered at step 1, ATS entered at step 2, WNS entered at step 3, and SRS entered at step 4. At step 1, NFC accounted for 2.4% of the variability, F(1, 202)=5.95, p=0.02. At step 2, ATS did not significantly account for any additional variability. At step 3, WNS accounted for an additional 2.4% of variability, ΔF(1, 200)=5.02, p=0.03. Finally, at step 4, SRS significantly accounted for an additional 1.9% of variability in scientific information discussion, ΔF(1, 199)=4.06, p=0.045, total adjusted R-squared of 0.055. Discussion This study provides additional support for previous findings that scientific reasoning skills affect the way jurors comprehend and use scientific evidence. It expands on previous findings by suggesting that these individual differences also impact the way scientific evidence is discussed during juror deliberations. In addition, this study advances the literature by identifying Scientific Reasoning Skills as a potentially more robust explanatory individual differences variable than more well-studied constructs like Need for Cognition in jury research. Our next steps for this research, which we plan to present at AP-LS as part of this presentation, incudes further analysis of the deliberation content (e.g., not just the mention of, but the accuracy of the references to scientific evidence in discussion). We are currently coding this data with a software program called Noldus Observer XT, which will allow us to present more sophisticated results from this data during the presentation. Learning Objective: Participants will be able to describe how individual differences in scientific reasoning skills affect how much jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberation. 

   more » « less
5. Using rapport building to improve information yield when interviewing adolescents: A systematic review and call for research

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106898  

   Dianiska, Rachel E; Quas, Jodi A; Lyon, Thomas D (August 2024, Child Abuse & Neglect)

   Background: Adolescents frequently experience and witness violence and crime, yet very little research has been conducted to determine how best to question these witnesses to elicit complete and accurate disclosures. Objective: This systematic review integrated scientific research on rapport building with child and adult witnesses with theory and research on adolescent development in order to identify rapport building techniques likely to be effective with suspected adolescent victims and witnesses. Method: Four databases were searched to identify investigations of rapport building in forensic interviewing of adolescents. Results: Despite decades of research of studies including child and adult participants, only one study since 1990 experimentally tested techniques to build rapport with adolescents. Most rapport strategies used with children and adults have yet to be tested with adolescents. Tests of these strategies, along with modifications based on developmental science of adolescence, would provide a roadmap to determining which approaches are most beneficial when questioning adolescent victims and witnesses. Conclusions: There is a clear need for research that tests what strategies are best to use with adolescents. They may be reluctant to disclose information about stressful or traumatic experi- ences to adults due to both normative developmental processes and the types of events about which they are questioned in legal settings. Rapport building approaches tailored to address adolescents’ motivational needs may be effective in increasing adolescents’ reporting, and additional research testing such approaches will provide much-needed insight to inform the development of evidence-based practices for questioning these youth 

   more » « less