English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Meester &amp; Sjerps (2003  Law, Probability and Risk  2 , 51–62) (henceforth M &amp; S) draw attention to an ambiguity in the definition of ‘the likelihood ratio’ that can arise with forensic multiple transfer evidence. Here I argue that this is a mathematical artifact and a logical red herring: in particular, for their data and assumptions only the likelihood ratio associated with their ‘first set of hypotheses’ is suitable for presentation in court.

law, probability and risk

Which likelihood ratio? (Comment on ‘Why the effect of prior  odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence’,  by Ronald Meester and Marjan Sjerps)