CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

False positives vs. false negatives: public opinion on the cost ratio in criminal justice risk assessment

Kang, Byunggu, Wu, Sishi·2023·Journal of Experimental Criminology
DOI 10.1007/s11292-022-09512-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11292-022-09512-2

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Awad, E., Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L., & Liao, B. (2020). An approach for combining ethical principles with public opinion to guide public policy. Artificial Intelligence, 287, Article 103349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103349 · DOI
  2. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20(3):351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Berk, R. A. (2019). Machine learning risk assessments in criminal justice settings. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02272-3 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Berk, R. A., Sorenson, S. B., & Barnes, G. (2016). Forecasting domestic violence: A machine learning approach to help inform arraignment decisions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13(1), 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12098 · DOI
  5. Blackstone, W. (2016). The Oxford edition of Blackstone: Commentaries on the laws of England, Vol. 4: Of Public Wrongs. (R. Paley, Ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199601028.book.1 · DOI
  6. Brauneis, R., & Goodman, E. (2017). Algorithmic transparency for the smart city. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 20, 103–176. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3012499 · DOI
  7. Coppock, A. (2019). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 613–628. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.10 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Coppock, A., Leeper, T. J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12441–12446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115 · DOI
  9. DeKay, M. L. (1996). The difference between Blackstone-like error ratios and probabilistic standards of proof. Law & Social Inquiry, 21(01), 95–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1996.tb00013.x · DOI
  10. de Keijser, J. W., de Lange, E. G., & van Wilsem, J. A. (2014). Wrongful convictions and the Blackstone ratio: An empirical analysis of public attitudes. Punishment & Society, 16(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474513504800 · DOI
  11. DeMichele, M., Baumgartner, P., Wenger, M., Barrick, K., & Comfort, M. (2020). Public safety assessment: Predictive utility and differential prediction by race in Kentucky. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(2), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12481 · DOI
  12. Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Ubel, P. A., Jankovic, A., Derry, H. A., & Smith, D. M. (2007). Measuring numeracy without a math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 672–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07304449 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Freedman, D. A. (2006). Statistical models for causation. Evaluation Review, 30(6), 691–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X06293771 · DOI
  14. Hamilton, M. (2020). Judicial gatekeeping on scientific validity with risk assessment tools. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(3), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2456 · DOI
  15. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2013). Actuarial sentencing: An “unsettled” proposition. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 270–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.682603 · DOI
  16. Harrison, G., Hanson, J., Jacinto, C., Ramirez, J., & Ur, B. (2020, January 27 - 30). An empirical study on the perceived fairness of realistic, imperfect machine learning models. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372831 · DOI
  17. Hartmann, K., & Wenzelburger, G. (2021). Uncertainty, risk and the use of algorithms in policy decisions: A case study on criminal justice in the USA. Policy Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09414-y · DOI
  18. Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2016). Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv, Article 1609.05807. http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807 · arXiv
  19. Kraemer, F., van Overveld, K., & Peterson, M. (2011). Is there an ethics of algorithms? Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9233-7 · DOI
  20. Lempert, R. O. (1976). Modeling relevance essay. Michigan Law Review, 75(Issues 5 & 6), 1021–1057. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4052&context=mlr · DOI
  21. Lillquist, E. (2002). Recasting reasonable doubt: Decision theory and the virtues of variability. U.C. Davis Law Review, 36(1), 85–198. https://https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.349820 · DOI
  22. Lin, W. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman’s critique. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 7(1), 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-AOAS583 · DOI
  23. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100105 · DOI
  24. Long, J. S. (1997). Ordinal outcomes. SAGE Publications Inc.
  25. Monahan, J., & Silver, E. (2003). Judicial decision thresholds for violence risk management. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2003.10471174 · DOI
  26. Monahan, J., Metz, A. L., & Garrett, B. L. (2018). Judicial appraisals of risk assessment in sentencing. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(5), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2380 · DOI
  27. Mossman, D., & Hart, K. J. (1993). How bad is civil commitment? A study of attitudes toward violence and involuntary hospitalization. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiary and the Law, 21(2), 181–194.
  28. Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19 Cambridge Core. · DOI
  29. Nagel S., Lamm D., Neef M. (1981) Decision theory and juror decision-making. In: Sales B.D. (eds) The trial process. Perspectives in Law & Psychology, vol 2. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3767-6_10 · DOI
  30. Netter, B. (2007). Using groups statistics to sentence individual criminals: An ethical and statistical critique of the Virginia Risk Assessment Program. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(3), 699–729. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/using-group-statistics-sentence-individual/docview/218408627/se-2?accountid=14166
  31. Oswald, M., Grace, J., Urwin, S., & Barnes, G. C. (2018). Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: Lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’ proportionality. Information & Communications Technology Law, 27(2), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2018.1458455 · DOI
  32. Robinson, P. H. (2008). Distributive principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195365757.001.0001 · DOI
  33. Robinson, P. H., Goodwin, G. P., & Reisig, M. D. (2010). The disutility of injustice. New York University Law Review, 85, 1940–2033. https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-disutility-of-injustice
  34. Saxena, N. A., Huang, K., DeFilippis, E., Radanovic, G., Parkes, D. C., & Liu, Y. (2019). How do fairness definitions fare? Examining public attitudes towards algorithmic definitions of fairness. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314248 · DOI
  35. Scurich, N. (2015). Criminal justice policy preferences: Blackstone ratios and the veil of ignorance. Stanford Law & Policy Review., 26, 23–35.
  36. Scurich, N. (2016). Structured risk assessment and legal decision-making. In M. Miller & B. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 1, pp. 159–183). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29406-3_5 · DOI
  37. Scurich, N. (2018). The case against categorical risk estimates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(5), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2382 · DOI
  38. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (2012). Common (mis)beliefs about memory: A replication and comparison of telephone and Mechanical Turk survey methods. PLOS ONE, 7(12), Article e51876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051876 · DOI
  39. Sommer, R., Sommer, B. A., & Heidmets, M. (1991). Release of the guilty to protect the innocent. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18(4), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854891018004008 · DOI
  40. Snowberg, E., & Yariv, L. (2021). Testing the waters: Behavior across participant pools. American Economic Review, 111(2), 687–719. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181065 · DOI
  41. Srivastava, M., Heidari, H., & Krause, A. (2019). Mathematical notions vs. human perception of fairness: A descriptive approach to fairness for machine learning. Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2459–2468. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330664 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Weinberg, J., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1(19), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a19 · DOI
  43. Winship, C., & Mare, R. D. (1984). Regression models with ordinal variables. American Sociological Review, 49(4), 512. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095465 · DOI
  44. Xiong, M., Greenleaf, R. G., & Goldschmidt, J. (2017). Citizen attitudes toward errors in criminal justice: Implications of the declining acceptance of Blackstone’s ratio. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 48, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2016.10.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 6

Metadata

Authors
Kang, B., & Wu, S.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-06-09
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
919-941
ISSN
  • 1573-3750
  • 1572-8315
DOI
10.1007/s11292-022-09512-2
Cited by
6
References
6
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review