Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Traditionally, firearm and toolmark examiners manually evaluate the similarity of features on two bullets using comparison microscopy. Advances in microscopy have made it possible to collect 3D topographic data, and several automated comparison algorithms have been introduced for the comparison of bullet striae using these data. In this study, open-source approaches for cross-correlation, congruent matching profile segments, consecutive matching striations, and a random forest model were evaluated. A statistical characterization of these automated approaches was performed using four datasets of consecutively manufactured firearms to provide a challenging comparison scenario. Each automated approach was applied to all samples in a pairwise fashion, and classification performance was compared. Based on these findings, a Bayesian network was empirically learned and constructed to leverage the strengths of each individual approach, model the relationship between the automated results, and combine them into a posterior probability for the given comparison. The network was evaluated similarly to the automated approaches, and the results were compared. The developed Bayesian network classified 99.6% of the samples correctly, and the resultant probability distributions were significantly separated more so than the automated approaches when used in isolation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15606 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!