我们如何在司法实践中使用自动说话人比较

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
David Van der Vloed, T. Cambier-Langeveld
{"title":"我们如何在司法实践中使用自动说话人比较","authors":"David Van der Vloed, T. Cambier-Langeveld","doi":"10.1558/ijsll.23955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Automatic methods are rapidly gaining ground in forensic speaker comparison, next to the existing auditory-acoustic methodology, performed by human experts with an academic background in phonetics. In this article we set out the steps that were taken before we could introduce the automatic method and start combining the two methods (software and human) in casework. We further provide a comprehensive explanation of the automatic method (originally written for readers of forensic reports) in the appendix. We discuss the legal reception of the combined approach, based on a court ruling in an appeal case in which the reliability of the speaker comparison was challenged by the defence. We also address the important issue of how conflicting results from the two methods may be dealt with in practice.","PeriodicalId":43843,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How we use automatic speaker comparison in forensic practice\",\"authors\":\"David Van der Vloed, T. Cambier-Langeveld\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/ijsll.23955\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Automatic methods are rapidly gaining ground in forensic speaker comparison, next to the existing auditory-acoustic methodology, performed by human experts with an academic background in phonetics. In this article we set out the steps that were taken before we could introduce the automatic method and start combining the two methods (software and human) in casework. We further provide a comprehensive explanation of the automatic method (originally written for readers of forensic reports) in the appendix. We discuss the legal reception of the combined approach, based on a court ruling in an appeal case in which the reliability of the speaker comparison was challenged by the defence. We also address the important issue of how conflicting results from the two methods may be dealt with in practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.23955\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.23955","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

自动方法在法医说话人比较中迅速取得进展,仅次于现有的由具有语音学学术背景的人类专家执行的听声方法。在本文中,我们列出了在引入自动方法并开始在案例工作中结合两种方法(软件和人工)之前所采取的步骤。我们在附录中进一步提供了自动方法的全面解释(最初是为法医报告的读者编写的)。我们根据一个上诉案件中的法院裁决,讨论了对联合方法的法律接受,其中辩方对说话人比较的可靠性提出了质疑。我们还讨论了如何在实践中处理这两种方法产生的相互矛盾的结果这一重要问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How we use automatic speaker comparison in forensic practice
Automatic methods are rapidly gaining ground in forensic speaker comparison, next to the existing auditory-acoustic methodology, performed by human experts with an academic background in phonetics. In this article we set out the steps that were taken before we could introduce the automatic method and start combining the two methods (software and human) in casework. We further provide a comprehensive explanation of the automatic method (originally written for readers of forensic reports) in the appendix. We discuss the legal reception of the combined approach, based on a court ruling in an appeal case in which the reliability of the speaker comparison was challenged by the defence. We also address the important issue of how conflicting results from the two methods may be dealt with in practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles on any aspect of forensic language, speech and audio analysis. Founded in 1994 as Forensic Linguistics, the journal changed to its present title in 2003 to reflect a broadening of academic coverage and readership. Subscription to the journal is included in membership of the International Association of Forensic Linguists and the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics.
×
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