Inferential Source Attribution from Dust: Review and Analysis.

Q1 Social Sciences
Forensic Science Review Pub Date : 2013-03-01
D A Stoney, A M Bowen, P L Stoney
{"title":"Inferential Source Attribution from Dust: Review and Analysis.","authors":"D A Stoney,&nbsp;A M Bowen,&nbsp;P L Stoney","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The analysis of dust allows inference of exposures to geographical areas, environments, activities, and processes. This activity of inferential source attribution is distinguished from that of comparative source attribution, where the focus is on the degree of correspondence between two sources in relation to other possible sources. Review of source attribution efforts in the forensic and broader scientific literature shows that most efforts are limited in one or more of four principal ways, which are classified as: (a) methods based on attribution by direct comparison; (b) methods based on closed-set item classification; (c) analysis using restricted methods and characteristics, and (d) requirement of a large sample size. These limitations provide the context for the requirements of more generalized inferential source attribution. Occurring much more rarely, and almost exclusively in the forensic literature, are individual source attribution case reports that have a microscopical, multidisciplinary perspective. Collectively these are an excellent illustration of potential and their common features demonstrate that (a) a diversity of laboratory expertise and methodology is required in order for source attribution to be successful; (b) different tools need to be applied in different cases, and (c) a process must be in place that allows a facile choice among this diversity of tools, in response to the particular investigative problem and the specifics of the samples that are available. Alternative collaborative mechanisms are considered and recommendations are made for related research and programmatic application. </p>","PeriodicalId":38192,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science Review","volume":"25 1-2","pages":"107-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The analysis of dust allows inference of exposures to geographical areas, environments, activities, and processes. This activity of inferential source attribution is distinguished from that of comparative source attribution, where the focus is on the degree of correspondence between two sources in relation to other possible sources. Review of source attribution efforts in the forensic and broader scientific literature shows that most efforts are limited in one or more of four principal ways, which are classified as: (a) methods based on attribution by direct comparison; (b) methods based on closed-set item classification; (c) analysis using restricted methods and characteristics, and (d) requirement of a large sample size. These limitations provide the context for the requirements of more generalized inferential source attribution. Occurring much more rarely, and almost exclusively in the forensic literature, are individual source attribution case reports that have a microscopical, multidisciplinary perspective. Collectively these are an excellent illustration of potential and their common features demonstrate that (a) a diversity of laboratory expertise and methodology is required in order for source attribution to be successful; (b) different tools need to be applied in different cases, and (c) a process must be in place that allows a facile choice among this diversity of tools, in response to the particular investigative problem and the specifics of the samples that are available. Alternative collaborative mechanisms are considered and recommendations are made for related research and programmatic application.

粉尘源推断归因:综述与分析。
对灰尘的分析可以推断暴露在地理区域、环境、活动和过程中。这种推理来源归因的活动与比较来源归因的活动不同,比较来源归因的重点是两个来源与其他可能来源之间的对应程度。对法医和更广泛的科学文献中来源归因工作的回顾表明,大多数努力都局限于以下四种主要方式中的一种或多种:(a)基于直接比较归因的方法;(b)基于闭集项目分类的方法;(c)使用受限的方法和特征进行分析,以及(d)要求大样本量。这些限制为更广义的推断源归因的要求提供了背景。很少发生,而且几乎只在法医文献中,是具有微观,多学科视角的个人来源归因案例报告。总的来说,这些都是潜力的极好例证,它们的共同特征表明:(a)为了成功地确定来源,需要多样化的实验室专业知识和方法;(b)在不同的情况下需要使用不同的工具,(c)必须有一个流程,可以根据特定的调查问题和可用样本的具体情况,在多种工具中进行方便的选择。考虑了其他协作机制,并为相关研究和程序化应用提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forensic Science Review
Forensic Science Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信