Post‐identification feedback effects: Investigators and evaluators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigated the effects of post‐identification feedback and viewing conditions on beliefs and interviewing tactics of participant‐investigators, crime reports of participant‐witnesses and participant‐evaluators' credibility judgments of the witnesses. Study 1 participants assumed the roles of witness and investigator (N = 167 pairs). Witnesses' view of a simulated crime video was manipulated by distance from viewing monitor: 2 or 9 ft. Participants made a line‐up identification and received either positive feedback or no feedback. Significant effects for witnesses and investigators were associated with viewing condition and post‐identification feedback. Interviews between investigator‐witness pairs were videotaped. Investigators asked more positive, leading questions when they were led to believe that the witness had identified the suspect. In Study 2 evaluators (N = 302) viewed the witness‐investigator interviews. Viewing condition had no effect on judgments of witness credibility but positive post‐identification feedback led evaluators to judge witnesses as more credible than witnesses who received no feedback. Copyright © 2010 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.219 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".