{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01736745886654479, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.596385542168675, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Story Model of Judicial Decision-Making and Reasoning With Evidence

The argumentative approach, the probability approach, and the story model are the three normative frameworks to reasoning with judicial evidence. The story model describes that judges reach the final conclusion by going through three different stages. The model also offered certainty principles, including evidential coverage, coherence, consistency, plausibility, and structural completeness to evaluate the stories. Different researchers have criticized the story model by pointing out that the model does not elaborate the meaning of evidential coverage and plausibility. Additionally, the story model has also been charged on the ground that it does not guide how to evaluate evidential coverage or plausibility of a story and how to select the best story when judges make more than one story. The present study demonstrates that these shortcomings may be overcome by using anchored narrative theory, causal abductive reasoning, story schemes, critical questions, and principles of inference to the best explanation.