MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551493322

A Review of Applied Techniques of the Detection of Criminal Deceit

2014· review· en· W1551493322 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liu Jianqing

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLie detectionPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Expression (computer science)Foundation (evidence)Empirical researchControl (management)CognitionValidityCognitive psychologySocial psychologyCognitive scienceComputer scienceEpistemologyDeceptionArtificial intelligenceLawNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyPower (physics)Political science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The techniques of the detection of criminal deceit, including lie-detection technique and true-detection technique, are involved in determination and evaluation of response to specific information in the guilt knowledge. Under the support of a theory of emotion, a theory of control, a theory of cognitive processing and a theory of self-expression in the contemporary applied psychology and judicial psychology, this technique system has developed a psychophysiological technique, a non-verbal technique, a verbal technique, a brain scanning technique and a strategic use of evidence etc. Based on different aspects of deceit psychology, the techniques of the detection are explored from different mechanisms. With the support of judicial experience, and foundation from the empirical researches on physiology-psychology, cerebral nerve and other aspects, the techniques have validity and reliability at a different level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207