Children's Identification Accuracy of Multiple Perpetrators: Examining the Simultaneous versus Elimination Line-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification accuracy of child witnesses for a multiple perpetrator crime was examined using two line-up procedures, the simultaneous and elimination. Participants (N = 90) viewed a videotape of a staged theft involving two perpetrators (thief vs. accomplice). Each witness was shown two line-ups. Target-present and target-absent line-ups were used with each procedure across each perpetrator. Collapsing across line-up procedure, child witnesses correctly identified the thief and the accomplice at a comparable rate. When the thief was present in the line-up, the correct identification rate did not vary as a function of line-up procedure. However, when the accomplice was present in the line-up, the rate of correct identification was higher with the simultaneous procedure than with the elimination procedure. When the thief was absent from the line-up, the correct rejection rate was higher with the elimination procedure compared with the simultaneous procedure. Child witnesses correctly rejected the accomplice at a comparable rate across line-up procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".