The influence of an early interview on long‐term recall: a comparative analysis
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
Abstract Because of burgeoning participation by children in forensic situations there is significant concern about children's memory for stressful events. Influence of timing of the first interview and interview frequency on long‐term recall were evaluated by comparing three groups of 3‐ to 9‐year‐olds 1 year after an injury requiring emergency room treatment. One group had one interview, a year after injury; another group had two interviews, immediately and a year later; the third group had three interviews, immediately, 6 months and a year after injury. The type of event and timing of the initial interview influenced completeness and accuracy of recall after 1 year. All children showed extensive recall but having an immediate interview was associated with greater completeness and accuracy for 3–4‐year‐olds but not older children. This suggests a social influence: a highly structured and organized early interview may have beneficial effects on memory for preschoolers. Implications for questioning and testimony are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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