Child witnesses in the criminal justice system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An essential element of any effective justice system is the protection of child victims and child witnesses of crime. Where provision is not made for separate and specialised services for this vulnerable group, they may be further exposed to the negative effects of the criminal justice system or may even be (further) victimised by it. In the early part of the 20th century most research on child witnesses had been conducted in Europe, especially in Germany and France. Little attention was paid to the phenomenon of child witnesses in the United States until the 1920s and even then only a few studies on the child witness were conducted prior to the 1980s (Institute for Psychological Therapies 1998). These studies show that although children in Canada, America and Great Britain were rarely permitted to testify, in some other European countries it was general practice. This led to research that dealt directly with children's court testimony. At the time the general conclusion was that (only) young children were suggestible and vulnerable to making serious errors in their court testimony (Ceci & Bruck; Goodman; Wakefield & Underwager in Institute for Psychological Therapies 1998).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".