Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and reality monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching, and deception.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The first aim of this experiment was to examine whether being informed about a method of detecting deception called Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) would increase participants' CBCA scores when deceptive so that they might then be classified as truthful.The second aim was to investigate whether Reality Monitoring could be used as an alternative tool for verbal lie detection.The third aim was to examine whether participants' social skills (social anxiety, self monitoring and social adroitness) affected their CBCA scores.[11][12][14][15] and undergraduates) participated in a "rubbing the blackboard" event.In a subsequent interview they told the truth or lied about the event, after they were or were not taught some CBCA criteria.Truth tellers obtained higher CBCA scores than liars, and those who were informed about CBCA obtained higher scores than those who were not, except for the 6-8-year-olds.CBCA scores were also significantly correlated with social skills.Finally, Reality Monitoring was a useful alternative to CBCA for distinguishing between liars and truth tellers.Let Me Inform You How to Tell a Convincing Story: CBCA and Reality Monitoring Scores as a Function of Age, Coaching and DeceptionTo date, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) -a systematic assessment of the credibility of written statements-is probably the most popular instrument to assess the veracity of written statements (Vrij, 2000).CBCA is a systematic assessment of the credibility of written statements.Steller and Khnken (1989) compiled a list of 19 criteria which had been used in such assessments.CBCA is based on the hypothesis, originally stated by Undeutsch (1967), that a statement derived from memory of an actual experience differs in content and quality from a statement based on invention or fantasy.This is known as the Undeutsch Hypothesis (Steller, 1989).The presence of each criterion strengthens the hypothesis that the account is based on genuine personal experience.Khnken (1989Khnken ( , 1996Khnken ( , 1999Khnken ( , 2002) ) presented theoretical support for the Undeutsch hypothesis and proposed that both cognitive and motivational factors influence CBCA scores.With regard to cognitive factors, it is assumed that, compared to those who fabricate a story, someone who actually experienced an event would be able to produce descriptions about this event which include more CBCA criteria, as some criteria (unstructured production, contextual embedding, reproduction of speech, unusual details, etc.) are believed to be very difficult for people to fabricate.Other criteria are more likely to occur in truthful statements for motivational reasons.Truthful persons will not be as much concerned with impression management as will deceivers.Compared to truth tellers, deceivers would be more keen to try to construct a report which they believe will make a credible impression on others, and will leave out information which, in their view, will damage their image of being a truthful person (Khnken, 1999).As a result, a truthful person's statement is more likely to contain information that is inconsistent with the beliefs/stereotypes that people have concerning truth
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».