Eliciting information from groups: Social information and the Concealed Information Test.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polygraph recordings of physiological reactions to a Group Concealed Information Test identified exposure to one of three mock village scenarios. Sixty-nine participants worked in groups on a card construction project while viewing tea making, bomb making, or no event. Participants denied knowledge of the events, but skin resistance and heart rate scores analysed by means of a multivariate analysis of variance, F(8, 106) = 4.08, and analyses of variance showed the tea group responding most on tea-related questions on skin resistance, F(2, 56) = 11.57, and heart rate, F(2, 56) = 4.58. The bomb group was highest for skin resistance, F(2, 56) = 6.17. Four of five and three of four groups who witnessed bomb and tea making, respectively, were identified at the 90% level of confidence, with combined scores suggesting that populations exposed to dangerous activities can be selectively distinguished.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".