Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Expert evidence

Contents

Journal articles
Dissertations / Theses
Books
Book chapters
Conference papers
Reports

Academic literature on the topic 'Expert evidence'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 29 July 2024

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Expert evidence.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Expert evidence"

1

Onuigbo, Wilson I. B. "Expert evidence." American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 6, no. 2 (June 1985): 141–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000433-198506000-00005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Wilson, Adam. "Expert Evidence." Journal of Criminal Law 70, no. 4 (August 2006): 292–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1350/jcla.70.4.292.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Shepherd, R. T. "Expert Evidence." Medico-Legal Journal 59, no. 2 (June 1991): 67–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002581729105900201.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Kirby, Michael. "Expert Evidence." Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 26, no. 2 (July 1994): 77–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00450619409411312.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Greco, Peter M. "Expert or evidence?" American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 162, no. 4 (October 2022): 442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.07.005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Freeman, Bradley W. "Expert Psychiatric Evidence." Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 73, no. 08 (August 15, 2012): 1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.4088/jcp.12bk07941.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Latham, Richard. "Expert psychiatric evidence." Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 23, no. 5-6 (October 2012): 740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2012.695885.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Zeitlin, H. "Expert psychiatric evidence." Medico-Legal Journal 82, no. 2 (June 2014): 83–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0025817213517358.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Saks, Michael J., and David L. Faigman. "EXPERT EVIDENCE AFTERDAUBERT." Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1, no. 1 (December 2005): 105–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115907.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Isaac, M. "Expert psychiatric evidence." Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 20, no. 2 (February 2013): 125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2012.04.040.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

More sources

Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Expert evidence"

1

Dwyer, DeÌirdre M. "The judicial assessment of expert evidence." Thesis, University of Oxford, 2006. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.424882.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Murray, Andrew Stuart. "Expert Evidence and the Problem of Privilege." Thesis, The University of Sydney, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/18328.

Full text

Abstract:

The giving of admissible evidence of opinion by experts and the concept of ‘litigation privilege’ each occupies an anomalous position within our legal system. Expert evidence is evidence provided to a court to assist in the determination of questions of science or professional skill. It is an exception to the rule that prohibits the adducing of opinion evidence and, in the case of the party-engaged expert, requires that the expert owe a paramount duty to the court. Litigation privilege is a species of legal professional privilege and a principle of public policy that operates to restrict the obligation of a party to disclose documents evidencing certain protected communications ¬in response to applications for disclosure. It is an exception to the principle that evidence that is relevant to a fact in issue is admissible. But should, for example, communications between a solicitor and an expert also be subject to litigation privilege in light of the expert’s paramount duty to the court? The issue raises questions about the role of the expert as an independent authority upon whom the courts can rely in circumstances in which a party is deploying that expert to adduce evidence in an adversarial context. The current orthodoxy, by largely maintaining the cloak of legal professional privilege in relation to draft reports and communications with experts, does little to alleviate the inherent tension between these principles. This thesis seeks to explore these issues. It also considers reforms that may ameliorate the problems that the current orthodoxy has engendered within the federal and New South Wales civil jurisdictions with respect to the party-engaged expert and the application of legal professional privilege.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Ploeger, Matthew Brian. "Expert witnesses in federal civil litigation /." Digital version accessible at:, 1998. http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/utexas/main.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Ong, Lee Za. "Wisconsin attorneys in selection of vocational expert witnesses." Online version, 1999. http://www.uwstout.edu/lib/thesis/1999/1999ong.pdf.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Rumbold, John Mark Michael. "The parasomnia defence : expert evidence in criminal trials." Thesis, Keele University, 2015. http://eprints.keele.ac.uk/2501/.

Full text

Abstract:

There are increasing numbers of defendants seeking to rely on the occurrence of sleepwalking or some other parasomnia in their defence to a criminal charge. Consequently this has become a matter for public concern, particularly in relation to sexual assaults committed after alcohol consumption. This study used ethnographic methods to understand how the expert witnesses assess the accused in these cases, and then present their evidence to the jury. It also looked at the two-way interactions between law and medical science, and the difficulties each field has with the other. Sleepwalking in particular is an under-researched condition, with the basic phenomenology not fully explored yet. The experts must often rely on professional experience and give opinions, rather than relying on solid scientific evidence. Juries rarely return the special verdict, and victims are left dissatisfied by the incredible nature of the defence. The law pertaining to automatism and insanity is complicated and out of step with medical science. The Law Commission has recently examined this tricky area of law and recommended reform. The study concludes that the standard of expert evidence is generally good, although further work is needed to examine the specifics of how opinion and test results are presented to the jury. A number of recommendations are made about the standard of admissibility, legal reform and future directions of research.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Moffa, Morgan S. "The evidence and expert judgments of their relative importance in confession adjudication /." View thesis online, 2008. http://docs.rwu.edu/psych_thesis/1/.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Dumani, Msebenzi. "Aspects of expert evidence in the criminal justice system." Thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/10948/435.

Full text

Abstract:

The rule excluding evidence of opinion is traditionally stated in broad and general terms, subject to a more or less closed list of exemptions. Stephen says that a witness’s opinion is “deemed to be irrelevant”. A witness may depose to the facts which he has observed, but he may not ordinarily state any inferences which he has drawn from those facts, or opinions founded upon facts of which he has no personal knowledge. The general rule is that the evidence of opinion or belief of a witness is irrelevant because it is the function of a court to draw inferences and form its opinion from the facts; the witnesses give evidence as to the facts and the court forms its opinion from those facts. The opinion of an expert is admissible if it is relevant. It will be relevant if the witness’s skill, training or experience enables him materially to assist the court on matters in which the court itself does not usually have the necessary knowledge to decide. Where the topic is such that an ordinary judicial officer could be expected to be able, unassisted, to draw an inference, expert evidence is superfluous. In principle, there is no rule that a witness cannot give his opinion on an issue that the court has to decide ultimately. It is not experts alone who may give their opinions on ultimate issues but, in practice, there is a strong tendency to regard the evidence of lay persons on ultimate issues as constituting prima facie evidence only. If such lay testimony remains unchallenged, it may be of greater significance. It is generally true that relevant evidence is admissible and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. At this stage the following question may be posed: is the opinion of any witness – whether from an expert or lay person – admissible evidence? Should an opinion be admitted for purposes of persuading the court to rely on it in deciding the issue at hand? The basic answer is that relevance remains the fundamental test for admissibility. Certain issues simply cannot be decided without expert guidance. Expert opinion evidence is therefore readily received on issues relating to ballistics, engineering, chemistry, medicine, accounting and psychiatry, to mention only a few examples. The problem which arises is this: what is the best way of cross-examining the expert witness? Although the concept of skilful cross-examination conjures up the image of the crossexaminer destroying the expert witness in the witness box, total annihilation of expert evidence in court occurs only rarely. In reality, lawyers who are expected to cross-examine experts are often at a disadvantage in that they do not possess sufficient in-depth knowledge of the specific field of expertise to enable them to cross-examine the witness. Despite the expert nature of the evidence, it is suggested that the true basis of crossexamination should not be abandoned when dealing with experts. The effectiveness of crossexamination is enhanced by keeping the number of questions to a minimum as well as opening and concluding with good strong points. At the outset it should be mentioned that there is a distinction between matters of scientific fact and matters of mere opinion. On matters of scientific fact experts seldom differ but within the province of opinion one encounters difficulties. Lengthy cross-examination concerning expert’s theoretical knowledge is usually inefficient and should rarely be attempted. Cross-examination should be directed at pure logic or scientific analysis. The cross-examiner should always have relevant authority with him in court so as to confront the expert with these. The whole effect of the testimony of an expert witness can also be destroyed by putting the witness to test at the trial as to his qualifications, his experience and his ability and discriminations as an expert. A failure to meet this test renders his evidence nugatory.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Forret, Joan Boyce. "An Interface between science and law: What is science for members of New Zealand's Environment Court?" The University of Waikato, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/10289/2667.

Full text

Abstract:

This study investigates the interface between science and law with reference to models of science described by members of New Zealand's Environment Court. The aim of the research is to identify differences and consistencies between the members of the Court in the way that they articulate their understanding of science and of scientific evidence. This research also aims to locate those individual models of science within a wider philosophical discourse concerning the nature of science. The research adopts a qualitative and interpretive approach that focuses on understanding the detail of contextual interactions arising from interviews with eight Environment Judges and 13 Commissioners. The interview group comprised all of the judges of the Court during the research period (1999 - 2000) and all but one permanent Commissioner. The analysis of interviews show a wide range of views concerning the scope and nature of science. Criteria significant to each individual's model of science have been identified as a series of micro themes. Those micro themes differ between individuals as to the combinations of criteria significant when locating the boundary between science and non-science. The analysis of interviews also identifies three macro themes that describe whether and how individuals differentiate science, technology and expertise. That analysis identifies a group of interviewees, comprising both judges and commissioners, that equates science with expertise without distinction as to any knowledge component or process considerations. The analysis of interview responses adopts a boundary-work approach that identifies how individuals locate the boundary between science and non-science through their articulation of the micro themes significant to their model of science. The study contributes to the discourse concerning the relationship of science and law within modern society. That discourse commonly addresses the appropriate legal framework to assess questions involving scientific expertise and invariably describes the legal process and the role of expert and decision maker within that process. However, that discourse rarely articulates the meaning of the terms science, scientist, or technology, assuming that science is a self-evident concept, its meaning having universal application and acceptance. This research challenges that approach and identifies wide differences in the models of science held by individual decision makers and differences in their expectations of evidence from expert witnesses. Aside from the implications of the research results for the discourse concerning the relationship of science and law, this research also has practical implications for the evaluation of expert scientific evidence within an adversarial system of law, and for expert evidence before the Environment Court. Suggestions to improve communication both within the Court and between the Court and parties appearing before it are made with a view to identifying consistent and fair expectations of experts and their evidence.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Meintjes-van, der Walt Lirieka. "Expert evidence in the criminal justice process : a comparative perspective /." Amsterdam : Rozenberg, 2001. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0630/2002329797-d.html.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Farley, Erin Jennifer. "Deliberating science juries, scientific evidence and commonsense justice /." Access to citation, abstract and download form provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company; downloadable PDF file, 309 p, 2007. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1251900581&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=8331&RQT=309&VName=PQD.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

More sources

Books on the topic "Expert evidence"

1

1933-1997, Sopinka John, Fuerst Michelle, and Law Society of Upper Canada. Dept. of Continuing Legal Education., eds. Expert evidence. [Toronto]: Dept. of Continuing Legal Education, Law Society of Upper Canada = Barreau du Haut-Canada, 1995.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

E, Willging Thomas, and Federal Judicial Center, eds. Court-appointed experts: Defining the role of experts appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Washington, DC (One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington 20002-8003): Federal Judicial Center, 1993.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Nutley, W. G. Arbitrations & expert evidence. [London]: Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy, 1989.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Isaeva, L. M. Spet︠s︡ialʹnye poznanii︠a︡ v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Moskva: I︠U︡RMIS, 2003.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Poleshchuk, O. V. Teorii︠a︡ i praktika primenenii︠a︡ spet︠s︡ialʹnykh znaniĭ v sovremennom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Moskva: I︠U︡rlitinform, 2007.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Karlov, V. I︠A︡. Sudebnai︠a︡ ėkspertiza v ugolovnom prot︠s︡esse Rossiĭskoĭ Federat︠s︡ii: Uchebnoe posobie. Moskva: Ėkzamen, 2008.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Commission, New Zealand Law, ed. Evidence law: Expert evidence and opinion evidence : a discussion paper. Wellington, N.Z: Law Commission, 1991.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

E, Willging Thomas, and Federal Judicial Center, eds. Court-appointed experts: Defining the role of experts appointed under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1993.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Fradsham, Allan A. Presenting expert witnesses. [Scarborough, Ont.]: Carswell, 1995.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Kakakhel, Mian Muhib Ullah. Expert on shahadat. Lahore: Kashmir Law Times, 1995.

Find full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

More sources

Book chapters on the topic "Expert evidence"

1

Raum, Bernard A. "Expert evidence." In Forensic Botany, 79–92. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119945734.ch4.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Kampen, Petra T. C. "Expert Evidence." In Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice, 209–34. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9196-6_12.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Rumbold, John. "Expert evidence." In Automatism as a Defence in Criminal Law, 104–33. New York, NY : Routledge, 2018.: Routledge, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315203379-6.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Frommberger, U., J. Angenendt, and H. Dreßing. "Expert Evidence." In Trauma Sequelae, 153–72. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64057-9_9.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Frommberger, U., J. Angenendt, and H. Dreßing. "Expert Evidence." In Trauma Sequelae, 153–72. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64057-9_9.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Nemeth, Charles P. "Expert Evidence." In Law and Evidence, 225–75. 3rd ed. New York: CRC Press, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003267140-6.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Ingram, Jefferson L. "Opinions and Expert Testimony." In Criminal Evidence, 387–451. 14th ed. Fourteenth Edition. | New York : Routledge, 2021.: Routledge, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003092360-13.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Ingram, Jefferson L. "Opinions and Expert Testimony." In Criminal Evidence, 435–501. Thirteenth edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2018.: Routledge, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315267432-16.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Hampel, George. "Dealing with Expert Evidence." In Victim Advocacy before the International Criminal Court, 141–55. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56733-0_11.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Walton, Douglas. "Evaluating Expert Opinion Evidence." In Law, Governance and Technology Series, 117–44. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_4.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Conference papers on the topic "Expert evidence"

1

Wang, Meng, Tao Shen, and Zhengtao Yu. "Expert evidence document recognition integrating relationship of expert." In 2013 25th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC). IEEE, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ccdc.2013.6561069.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Gonçalves, Rodrigo, and Carina F. Dorneles. "Experion: A framework for contextualizing evidence in expert finding." In Anais Estendidos do Simpósio Brasileiro de Banco de Dados. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação - SBC, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.5753/sbbd_estendido.2021.18172.

Full text

Abstract:

Expert finding is traditionally related to a subject of research in information retrieval and, often, is taken to mean "expertise retrieval within a specific organization". The task involves finding an expert in an expertise topic. Even though there are interesting proposals in the literature, they do not consider the context in which a given expertise is bound. This Ph.D. thesis introduces the concept of a framework that chronologically contextualizes search results in expert finding. Our motivation is to provide more accurate results of search processes related to finding experts in a given topic, contextualizing the expertise on professional/academic activities, an open research topic. In this paper, we present the main concepts of the framework we are developing and a general overview of its operation. At the moment, we are using the Lattes platform as a data source, for which we developed a process to extract expertise evidence, supported by the Crossref database.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Balog, Krisztian, and Maarten de Rijke. "Non-local evidence for expert finding." In Proceeding of the 17th ACM conference. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1458082.1458148.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Cunin, Solange, Andrew Dempster, Allison Kealy, and Gary Edmond. "GNSS Expert Witness Evidence in Australian Courts." In ION 2019 Pacific PNT Meeting. Institute of Navigation, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.33012/2019.16857.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Duckworth, Paul, Logan Graham, and Michael Osborne. "Inferring Work Task Automatability from AI Expert Evidence." In AIES '19: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314247.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Kohler, Rachel, John Purviance, and Kurt Luther. "Geolocating Images with Crowdsourcing and Diagramming." In Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence {IJCAI-18}. California: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/741.

Full text

Abstract:

Many types of investigative work involve verifying the legitimacy of visual evidence by identifying the precise geographic location where a photo or video was taken. Professional geolocation is often a manual, time-consuming process that can involve searching large areas of satellite imagery for potential matches. In this paper, we explore how crowdsourcing can be used to support expert image geolocation. We adapt an expert diagramming technique to overcome spatial reasoning limitations of novice crowds so that they can support an expert's search. In an experiment (n=540), we found that diagrams work significantly better than ground-level photos and allow crowds to reduce a search area by half before any expert intervention. We also discuss hybrid approaches to complex image analysis combining crowds, experts, and computer vision.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Kovalenko, Igor, Yevhen Davydenko, and Alyona Shved. "Formation of Consistent Groups of Expert Evidences Based on Dissimilarity Measures in Evidence Theory." In 2019 IEEE 14th International Scientific and Technical Conference on Computer Sciences and Information Technologies (CSIT). IEEE, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/stc-csit.2019.8929858.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Dempster, Andrew G., Gary Edmond, Allison Kealy, and Terry Moore. "Questions for Providers of Expert Opinion on Logged GNSS Evidence." In 2019 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation. Institute of Navigation, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.33012/2019.16726.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

BECKER, LEE, PETER GREEN, R. DUCKWORTH, and JAYANT BHATNAGAR. "Validation and verification of expert systems using evidence flow graphs." In 7th Computers in Aerospace Conference. Reston, Virigina: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1989. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.1989-2983.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Reichherzer, Carolin, Andrew Cunningham, Jason Barr, Tracey Coleman, Kurt McManus, Dion Sheppard, Scott Coussens, Mark Kohler, Mark Billinghurst, and Bruce H. Thomas. "Supporting Jury Understanding of Expert Evidence in a Virtual Environment." In 2022 IEEE on Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/vr51125.2022.00082.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Reports on the topic "Expert evidence"

1

DellaVigna, Stefano, and Devin Pope. What Motivates Effort? Evidence and Expert Forecasts. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w22193.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

McConnell, Allan. Australia: How Has Technical and Expert Policy Advice Been Used for Rapid Response Decision-Making? Australia and New Zealand School of Government, October 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.54810/xaag2908.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper was commissioned in 2020 for ANZSOG and China’s Central Party School’s joint dialogue: Public administration reflections on the COVID-19 response in China, Aotearoa-New Zealand and Australia. It looks at the role of experts and expertise in shaping the initial Australian response to COVID-19 in 2020 and the role of evidence-based policy in dealing with crises.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Ward, Lisa. 10 Pillars of Youth Justice. Australia and New Zealand School of Government, December 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.54810/bjqz3082.

Full text

Abstract:

This research paper was prepared by independent expert Lisa Ward for an ANZSOG cross-jurisdictional Problem Solving Workshop on youth justice held in November 2019. It draws on the distillation of best available evidence to outline ten principles for effective youth justice programs.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

McKay, Jaclynn, Mikalaa Martin, Micaela Ascolese, and Gabby DiEmma. North Carolina State University and the Forensic Technology Center of Excellence Two-Part Virtual Workshop Series: Qualifications of an Expert Witness for Legal Professionals—The Daubert and Frye Standards. RTI Press, December 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2023.cp.0017.2312.

Full text

Abstract:

The Forensic Technology Center of Excellence, a program of the National Institute of Justice, in collaboration with North Carolina State University, hosted a two-part virtual workshop series on the Qualifications of an Expert Witness for Legal Professionals. The workshop series included topics relevant to qualifications of expert witnesses in forensic disciplines, with the first workshop occurring on August 2, 2023, and centering around the Daubert standard. The second workshop occurred on October 25, 2023, and focused on the Frye standard. The workshops brought together over 800 criminal justice professionals to explore the historical basis for the Frye and Daubert standards, the issues surrounding qualifying expert witnesses, the effect of the standards on the admission of expert testimony in the courts, and the future of forensic testimony with the December 2023 revisions to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The workshops included presentations from a diverse panel of speakers spanning the breadth of legal practitioners—including trial attorneys, professors, attorney generals, and postconviction litigators—and provided a platform for attendees to discuss legal issues related to forensic science.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Iwatani, Emi, Barbara Means, John Seylar, and Angela Hardy. Rubrics on Historical Thinking Skills for Assignments and Student Work: Initial Validity Evidence. Digital Promise, January 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/112.

Full text

Abstract:

Digital Promise sought to create and validate two sets of Historical Thinking Skills rubrics for use in its evaluation of Gates Ventures’ World History Project (WHP) curriculum: one for evaluating teacher-assigned activities, and another for evaluating the student work those activities produced. Adopting a principled assessment development approach called Evidence Centered Design (Mislevy et al., 2003), the Digital Promise team began by conducting an academic literature review to inform rubric design, then piloted the draft rubrics to test their validity by having expert world history teachers score a sample of world history assignments and associated student work and provide feedback on the rubrics and scoring process. We found that scores that trained raters assigned to activities and student work were generally consistent across scorers, and scorer feedback indicated that the rubrics did indeed measure valuable historical thinking skills. Based on an analysis of rubric scores and scorer feedback, our team revised the draft rubrics to their final form.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Kim, Ozano, Sophie Witter, Jo Keatinge, Beth Scott, and Nicola Wardrop. What Works for Health Systems Strengthening: An Overview of the Evidence – Resource Toolkit. Institute of Development Studies, September 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.19088/k4d.2022.102.

Full text

Abstract:

This resource toolkit has been produced by K4D in partnership with the Health Systems Team in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) Human Development Department and renowned global health systems expert Prof. Sophie Witter (Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh). The toolkit is aimed at FCDO’s network of health advisors, and policy and programme managers based in country offices and central teams. The purpose of this toolkit is to summarise and present key messages from the latest evidence on ‘what works’ for health systems strengthening (HSS) to help embed a stronger HSS approach into all of our work on health as outlined in FCDO’s position paper Health Systems Strengthening for Global Health Security and Universal Health Coverage (FCDO 2021). The toolkit draws extensively on more detailed pieces of work analysing the evidence in more depth, which were disseminated through the health network in FCDO (and previously the Department for International Development) between 2019 and 2022 titled Evidence Review of What Works for Health Systems Strengthening, Where and When? (Witter et al. 2021). This toolkit also links back to a multitude of resources and recorded sessions collected as part of K4Ds previous learning journey on HSS.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Brusset, Emery, Gary Milante, Marie Riquier, and Caroline Delgado. Measuring Peace Impact: Challenges and Solutions. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, November 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.55163/wmya6073.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper presents emerging thinking about the challenges of measuring peace impact and the possible solutions to these challenges in conflict and peacebuilding settings. SIPRI and the World Food Programme (WFP) launched a Knowledge Partnership in 2018 to help strengthen WFP’s contribution to improving the prospects for peace in the countries where it operates. This paper contributes to the thematic deep dive on measurement, which assesses current empirical methods of measurement and possible areas for improvement as part of the SIPRI–WFP Knowledge Partnership. The Peace Evidence Expert Research (PEER) Group was established in 2020 by institutions and experts that convened to explore ongoing initiatives and build expertise in measuring peace impact in fragile, conflict and post-conflict settings. The report provides an overview of the 40 meetings convened by the group. Based on these discussions, lessons learned and ways forward are proposed for practitioners and researchers.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Woldeyohanes, Tesfaye, Karl Hughes, Kai Mausch, and Judith Oduol. Adoption of improved grains legumes and dryland cereals crop varieties: A synthesis of evidence. World Agroforestry, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/wp21022.pdf.

Full text

Abstract:

Like other crop improvement programs, a key prerequisite for the CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals (CRP GLDC) to generate large-scale impact is large-scale adoption. Hence, evidencing the breadth and depth of such adoption is both of intrinsic interest and important for estimating downstream impacts, such as improved food and nutritional security, income, resilience, and soil health. While various GLDC adoption studies have been undertaken, a recent effort to systematically review these studies and synthesize the results is lacking. We undertook such a review, identifying 69 studies and 35 independent country crop combinations (CCCs). To generate aggregated and updated estimates of GLDC improved varietal adoption, we devised and applied a procedure to estimate national cropping areas under such varieties and, in turn, the number of adopting households. Estimates derived from household surveys and expert opinion solicitation are treated with higher and lower levels of confidence, respectively. As of 2019, we estimate from higher confidence studies that improved GLDC crops were cultivated on 15.37 million hectares of land by 17.64 million households in CRP GLDC’s 13 priority countries. With the inclusion of lower confidence studies, these numbers increase to 32 and 44.64 million, respectively. We are further confident that the program exceeded its adoption target of 8.9 million newly adopting households from 2011, particularly when likely spillovers vis-à-vis non-surveyed areas, non-priority countries, and non-priority crops in priority countries are considered.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Gidengil, Courtney, Matthew Bidwell Goetz, Margaret Maglione, Sydne J. Newberry, Peggy Chen, Kelsey O’Hollaren, Nabeel Qureshi, et al. Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization in the United States: An Update. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), May 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.23970/ahrqepccer244.

Full text

Abstract:

Objective. To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the safety of vaccines recommended for routine immunization in the United States, updating the 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report on the topic. Data sources. We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, CINAHL®, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus through November 9, 2020, building on the prior 2014 report; reviewed existing reviews, trial registries, and supplemental material submitted to AHRQ; and consulted with experts. Review methods. This report addressed three Key Questions (KQs) on the safety of vaccines currently in use in the United States and included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended immunization schedules for adults (KQ1), children and adolescents (KQ2), and pregnant women (KQ3). The systematic review was supported by a Technical Expert Panel that identified key adverse events of particular concern. Two reviewers independently screened publications; data were extracted by an experienced subject matter expert. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of adverse events were eligible. We documented observed rates and assessed the relative risks for key adverse events. We assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) across the existing findings from the prior 2014 report and the new evidence from this update. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089). Results. A large body of evidence is available to evaluate adverse events following vaccination. Of 56,608 reviewed citations, 189 studies met inclusion criteria for this update, adding to data in the prior 2014 report, for a total of 338 included studies reported in 518 publications. Regarding vaccines recommended for adults (KQ1), we found either no new evidence of increased risk for key adverse events with varied SoE or insufficient evidence in this update, including for newer vaccines such as recombinant influenza vaccine, adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine, and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. The prior 2014 report noted a signal for anaphylaxis for hepatitis B vaccines in adults with yeast allergy and for tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccines. Regarding vaccines recommended for children and adolescents (KQ2), we found either no new evidence of increased risk for key adverse events with varied SoE or insufficient evidence, including for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine and meningococcal B vaccine. The prior 2014 report noted signals for rare adverse events—such as anaphylaxis, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and febrile seizures—with some childhood vaccines. Regarding vaccines recommended for pregnant women (KQ3), we found no evidence of increased risk for key adverse events with varied SoE among either pregnant women or their infants following administration of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccines during pregnancy. Conclusion. Across this large body of research, we found no new evidence of increased risk since the prior 2014 report for key adverse events following administration of vaccines that are routinely recommended. Signals from the prior report remain unchanged for rare adverse events, which include anaphylaxis in adults and children, and febrile seizures and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in children. There is no evidence of increased risk of adverse events for vaccines currently recommended in pregnant women. There remains insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about some rare potential adverse events.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Hurtado, Andres Villaquiran, and Daniel Jerez Mayorga. Effects of strength training on ankle injuries in soccer players: A systematic review. INPLASY - International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols, June 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2022.6.0093.

Full text

Abstract:

Review question / Objective: To determine the quality of evidence of studies evaluating the effects of strength training on the incidence of ankle injuries in soccer (II) to determine the effectiveness of strength training on the incidence of ankle injuries in soccer. Condition being studied: Effectiveness of strength training on the incidence of ankle injuries in soccer. Eligibility criteria: Studies that used ergogenic drugs or aidsConference presentations, theses, books, editorials, review articles, and expert opinions. Missing full text or incomplete data on outcome indicators.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!