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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

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

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The present letter to the editor is one in a series of publicationsdiscussing the formulation of hypotheses (propositions) for the evaluation ofstrength of forensic evidence. In particular, the discussion focusses on theissue of what information may be used to define the relevant populationspecified as part of the different-speaker hypothesis in forensic voicecomparison. The previous publications in the series are: Hicks et al. 2015<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2015.06.008>; Morrison et al. (2016)<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.07.002>; Hicks et al. (2017)<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2017.04.005>. The latter letter to theeditor mostly resolves the apparent disagreement between the two groups ofauthors. We briefly discuss one outstanding point of apparent disagreement, andattempt to correct a misinterpretation of our earlier remarks. We believe thatat this point there is no actual disagreement, and that both groups of authorsare calling for greater collaboration in order to reduce the likelihood offuture misunderstandings.

Reply to Hicks et al 2017, Reply to Morrison et al 2016 Refining the  relevant population in forensic voice comparison, Reply to Hicks et al 2015  The importance of distinguishing info from evidence/observations when  formulating propositions