MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining eyewitness identification accuracy using event‐related brain potentials (ERPs)

2007· article· en· W1992384572 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalSaint Mary's UniversityDalhousie UniversitySt. Mary's UniversityNational Research Council CanadaNational Research Council Institute for Biodiagnostics
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsPsychologyCulpritEvent-related potentialEyewitness identificationElectroencephalographyAudiologyTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyNeurosciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the use of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) as a neurophysiological measure of eyewitness identification accuracy during a lineup task (ERP-lineup). Time delay between viewing the crime and completing the ERP-lineup (no-delay, 1-h delay and 1-week delay conditions) and culprit presence or absence were also manipulated. Results demonstrated that a P300 provided a reliable index of recognition of the culprit relative to the other lineup members across all time delay conditions. Although participants' accuracy decreased at the 1-week time delay compared to no delay and the 1-h time delay, the P300 effect remained strong for participants that made correct identifications irrespective of the time delay. In addition, the P300 was attenuated or was not elicited when the culprit was absent from the lineup.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.327 · 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