MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049721135 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v6n1p19

Who Told You That? Uncovering the Source of Believed Cues to Deception

2014· article· en· W2049721135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carolyn M. Hurley, Darrin J. Griffin, Michael A. Stefanone

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeceptionPsychologySchema (genetic algorithms)Social psychologyExploratory researchCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many beliefs about deceptive communication – like liars avoid eye contact – are popular but inaccurate. Tobetter understand the transmission of both accurate and false cues to deception, we examined the perceivedsource of deception beliefs. Two exploratory studies revealed six categories of belief sources such as observedbehavior, mass media, and social networks, derived from 19 categories of deception beliefs. Reported beliefsloaded onto three primary factors suggesting a simpler schema for detecting deception. Both studies revealedthat most people recalled learning about cues to deception from observing others’ behavior, however, inaccuratebeliefs were more likely to be perpetuated by credible sources.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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