MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074091241 · doi:10.2466/pms.98.3.1039-1048

Improving Accuracy of Veracity Judgment through Cue Training

2004· article· en· W2074091241 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Santarcangelo, Robert A. Cribbie, Amy S. Ebesu Hubbard

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDeceptionSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyNonverbal communicationAudiologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to make judgments of veracity was investigated to see if training individuals on visual, vocal, or verbal content cues of deception would increase their ability to judge whether a message was truthful. The overall rate of accuracy of judging veracity was significantly greater for subjects trained on verbal content cues. More specifically, for detecting truthful messages, subjects trained on verbal content cues had significantly greater accuracy than subjects who received no cue training, whereas for detecting deceptive messages, there were no significant differences in accuracy among conditions.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207