Eyewitness testimony and perceived credibility of youth with mild intellectual disability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual disability (ID) are more vulnerable to abuse compared to individuals without disabilities yet have limited access to the legal system. This study examined perceived credibility of youth with mild intellectual disability (MID) who provide courtroom testimony. METHOD: Participants, 187 undergraduates, were asked general questions about credibility. They also read eyewitness testimony and answered questions about a particular witness's credibility. Half the participants were informed that the youth has MID [chronological age (CA) 15 years, mental age (MA) 10 years] and the others were informed that the youth is a typically developing 10-year-old. RESULTS: When participants were asked general questions about credibility they rated 15-year-olds with MID (MA 10 years) as less credible than typically developing 15-year-olds and as less credible than typically developing 10-year-olds. However, when participants read eyewitness testimony and answered questions about a particular witness's credibility, no statistically significant differences were found between participants who were informed that the witness was a 15-year-old with MID (MA 10 years) and those who were informed that the witness was a typically developing 10-year-old. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provided a preliminary investigation of perceived credibility of witnesses with MID and suggests directions for future research in this area.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it