Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Filters

Ewald Enzinger

Showing results (1-10 of 11) with videos related to

Pageof 2
Sort By:
Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society|October 6, 2016
What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be?Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Ewald Enzinger
Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society|January 16, 2018
Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios - Scores should take account of both similarity and typicalityGeoffrey Stewart Morrison, Ewald Enzinger
Forensic Science International|June 3, 2017
Empirical test of the performance of an acoustic-phonetic approach to forensic voice comparison under conditions similar to those of a real caseEwald Enzinger, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison
Forensic Science International|September 5, 2016
Use of relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models to calculate a likelihood ratio for a Chinese forensic voice comparison case involving two sistersCuiling Zhang, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Ewald Enzinger
Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society|December 5, 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 propositionsGeoffrey Stewart Morrison, Ewald Enzinger, Cuiling Zhang
Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society|January 10, 2016
A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison caseEwald Enzinger, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Felipe Ochoa
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America|January 10, 2013
Reliability of human-supervised formant-trajectory measurement for forensic voice comparisonCuiling Zhang, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Felipe Ochoa, et al.
Forensic Science International. Synergy|June 28, 2022
The opacity myth: A response to Swofford & Champod (2022)Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Nabanita Basu, Ewald Enzinger, et al.
Forensic Science International. Synergy|March 14, 2022
Validations of an alpha version of the E<sup>3</sup> Forensic Speech Science System (E<sup>3</sup>FS<sup>3</sup>) core software toolsPhilip Weber, Ewald Enzinger, Beltrán Labrador, et al.
Forensic Science International. Synergy|June 1, 2022
A strawman with machine learning for a brain: A response to Biedermann (2022) the strange persistence of (source) "identification" claims in forensic literatureGeoffrey Stewart Morrison, Daniel Ramos, Rolf Jf Ypma, et al.
Pageof 2

Showing results (1-10 of 11) with videos related to

Sort By:
Pageof 2
Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society|October 6, 2016
What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be?Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Ewald Enzinger
Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society|January 16, 2018
Score based procedures for the calculation of forensic likelihood ratios - Scores should take account of both similarity and typicalityGeoffrey Stewart Morrison, Ewald Enzinger
Forensic Science International|June 3, 2017
Empirical test of the performance of an acoustic-phonetic approach to forensic voice comparison under conditions similar to those of a real caseEwald Enzinger, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison
Forensic Science International|September 5, 2016
Use of relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models to calculate a likelihood ratio for a Chinese forensic voice comparison case involving two sistersCuiling Zhang, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Ewald Enzinger
Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society|December 5, 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 propositionsGeoffrey Stewart Morrison, Ewald Enzinger, Cuiling Zhang
Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society|January 10, 2016
A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison caseEwald Enzinger, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Felipe Ochoa
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America|January 10, 2013
Reliability of human-supervised formant-trajectory measurement for forensic voice comparisonCuiling Zhang, Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Felipe Ochoa, et al.
Forensic Science International. Synergy|June 28, 2022
The opacity myth: A response to Swofford & Champod (2022)Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, Nabanita Basu, Ewald Enzinger, et al.
Forensic Science International. Synergy|March 14, 2022
Validations of an alpha version of the E<sup>3</sup> Forensic Speech Science System (E<sup>3</sup>FS<sup>3</sup>) core software toolsPhilip Weber, Ewald Enzinger, Beltrán Labrador, et al.
Forensic Science International. Synergy|June 1, 2022
A strawman with machine learning for a brain: A response to Biedermann (2022) the strange persistence of (source) "identification" claims in forensic literatureGeoffrey Stewart Morrison, Daniel Ramos, Rolf Jf Ypma, et al.
Pageof 2