MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088228840 · doi:10.1145/2605292

TALIP Perspectives, Guest Editorial Commentary

2014· article· en· W2088228840 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeceptionTask (project management)Computer scienceEpistemologyCognitive scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyLinguisticsData scienceSocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In hopes of sparking a discussion, I argue for much needed research on automated deception detection in Asian languages. The task of discerning truthful texts from deceptive ones is challenging, but a logical sequel to opinion mining. I suggest that applied computational linguists pursue broader interdisciplinary research on cultural differences and pragmatic use of language in Asian cultures, before turning to detection methods based on a primarily Western (English-centric) worldview. Deception is fundamentally human, but how do various cultures interpret and judge deceptive behavior?

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.286 · 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