MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) to assess eyewitness accuracy and deception

2009· article· en· W2003983175 on OpenAlexaff
Celeste D. Lefebvre, Yannick Marchand, Steven M. Smith, John F. Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychophysiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySaint Mary's UniversityDalhousie UniversitySt. Mary's UniversityNational Research Council Institute for BiodiagnosticsIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeceptionEyewitness identificationCulpritPsychologyIdentification (biology)PsychophysiologyEvent-related potentialCognitive psychologyAudiologyElectroencephalographySocial psychologyComputer scienceNeurosciencePsychiatryMedicineData miningRelation (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PsychophysiologySame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207