Research output per year
Research output per year
Research output
- 10 results
Search results
-
2023
A response to Busey & Klutzke (2022): Regarding subjective assignment of likelihood ratios
Morrison, G. S., Jan 2023, In: Science and Justice. 63, 1, p. 61-62Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview
Open AccessFile -
A single test pair does not a method validation make: A response to Kirchhübel et al. (2023)
Morrison, G. S., 17 Mar 2023, In: Science and Justice. 63, 3, p. 327–329 3 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review
Open Access -
2022
A plague on both your houses: The debate about how to deal with “inconclusive” conclusions when calculating error rates
Morrison, G. S., 23 Nov 2022, In: Law, Probability and Risk. 21, 2, p. 127–129Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview
Open AccessFile -
A strawman with machine learning for a brain: A response to Biedermann (2022) the strange persistence of (source) “identification” claims in forensic literature
Morrison, G. S., Ramos, D., Ypma, R. J., Basu, N., Bie, K. D., Enzinger, E., Geradts, Z., Meuwly, D., Vloed, D. V. D., Vergeer, P. & Weber, P., 19 May 2022, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 4, 2 p., 100230.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review
Open AccessFile -
2021
Reply to Response to Vacuous standards – subversion of the OSAC standards-development process
Morrison, G. S., Neumann, C., Geoghegan, P. H., Edmond, G., Grant, T., Ostrum, R. B., Roberts, P., Saks, M., Syndercombe Court, D., Thompson, W. C. & Zabell, S., 2021, In: Forensic Science International: Synergy. 3, 100149.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review
Open Access -
2018
A response to Marquis et al (2017) What is the error margin of your signature analysis?
Morrison, G. S., Ballentyne, K. & Geoghegan, P., Jun 2018, In: Forensic Science International. 287, p. e11-e12 6 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review
Open AccessFile -
2017
A comment on the PCAST report: skip the “match”/“non-match” stage
Morrison, G. S., Kaye, D. H., Balding, D. J., Taylor, D., Dawid, P., Aitken, C. G. G., Gittelson, S., Zadora, G., Robertson, B., Willis, S., Pope, S., Neil, M., Martire, K. A., Hepler, A., Gill, R. D., Jamieson, A., de Zoete, J., Ostrum, R. B. & Caliebe, A., 1 Mar 2017, In: Forensic Science International. 272, p. e7-e9 3 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review
Open AccessFile -
2016
Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison – A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions
Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E. & Zhang, C., 11 Jul 2016, In: Science and Justice. 56, 6, p. 492-497 6 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review
-
2009
Comments on Coulthard & Johnson's (2007) portrayal of the likelihood-ratio framework
Morrison, G. S., Dec 2009, In: Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 41, 2, p. 155-161 7 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review
-
Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift
Morrison, G. S., Dec 2009, In: Science and Justice. 49, 4, p. 298-308 11 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter, comment/opinion or interview › peer-review