MétaCan
Menu
Cohort builder

4,299,418 works, Canadian by any of four routes.

Every filter state is a URL; the URL is the query; the query is citable via /q/⟨hash⟩. The page, the API and the export parse the same parameters.

The current cohort, streamed from the database: every work column, the machine labels, the provisional scores, and the per-row validation status. Exports are capped at 100,000 rows. Mints a permanent /q/ link for this exact query. The same filters always produce the same link, whoever asks.

Search term
Author
Year range
Sort
Language
Type
Field
Venue
Topic
Deception detection and forensic psychology
Retraction
Abstract
Evidence source
Study design
Label agreement
Label status

Direct Codex and Gemma labels are unvalidated and sparse. Distilled predictions cover the full frame and are also unvalidated. Choose the evidence source explicitly; absence of a direct label is never a negative label.

affaffiliation
fundfunder
venuejournal
aboutaboutness

The four routes compose: require the funder route and exclude affiliation to get the funder-only stratum no affiliation-based frame ever sees.

779 results · 1 filter active ·
Results by year
20002025
Publication date
Categories
Machine labels · sparse coverage
Evidence
Language
Type
Citations
An unlabeled work is unknown, not a negative. Label coverage is reported on every query.
779 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 2 of 16

Labels cover 3 of 779 works in this cohort. The rest are unlabeled, which is not a negative label: the label table is sparse today and grows as labeling rounds land.

Distilled predictions cover 779 of 779 works in this cohort. Predictions are machine_predicted_unvalidated. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work (title-only); the Codex side is a distilled, calibrated classifier. Candidate is the union; consensus is the intersection.

affaboutunlabeled
Let ’em Talk!
Brent Snook, Kirk Luther, Heather Quinlan, Rebecca Milne
2012· article· en· Criminal Justice and Behavior· Psychology
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
81
citations
affunlabeled
Miami University deception detection database
E. Paige Lloyd, Jason C. Deska, Kurt Hugenberg, Allen R. McConnell, Brandon T. Humphrey, Jonathan W. Kunstman
2018· article· en· Behavior Research Methods· Psychology
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
76
citations
affvenueaboutunlabeled
Reforming Investigative Interviewing in Canada
Brent Snook, Joseph Eastwood, Michael Stinson, John Tedeschini, John C. House
2010· article· en· Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale· Psychology
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
70
citations
afffundno abstractunlabeled
The truth about lying
Angelo Turri, John Turri
2015· article· en· Cognition· Psychology
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
69
citations
affunlabeled
Not Pollyannas
Nancy L. Carter, J. Mark Weber
2010· article· en· Social Psychological and Personality Science· Psychology
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
64
citations
afffundno abstractunlabeled
The body-worn camera perspective bias
Rémi Boivin, Annie Gendron, Camille Faubert, Bruno Poulin
2016· article· en· Journal of Experimental Criminology· Psychology
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
57
citations
afffundunlabeled
ALIED: Humans as adaptive lie detectors.
Chris Street
2015· article· en· Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition· Psychology
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
55
citations
affunlabeled
Polite, instrumental, and dual liars
Jennifer Lavoie, Sarah Yachison, Angela M. Crossman, Victoria Talwar
2016· article· en· International Journal of Behavioral Development· Psychology
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
52
citations

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About