MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155734565 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.674

A quantitative review of the Guilty Knowledge Test.

2001· review· en· W2155734565 on OpenAlexaff
Vance V. MacLaren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygraphPsychologyLie detectionTest (biology)Social psychologyStatisticsApplied psychologyClinical psychologyDeception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The guilty knowledge polygraph test (GKT; D. T. Lykken, 1959, 1960) is a psychophysiological method of identifying suspects with concealed information about a crime. A meta-analysis of 50 treatment groups drawn from 22 laboratory simulation studies (total N = 1,247) was conducted to provide a comprehensive estimate of GKT accuracy under controlled conditions. Electrodermal measures correctly identified 76% of participants with concealed knowledge and 83% of those without information. Informed participants were detected at rates significantly in excess of chance, with a mean weighted effect size of .57. Enactment of mock crimes increased the hit rate to 82%. The rates of false-positive error among noninformed treatment groups did not significantly exceed chance. Applications and research directions are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations189
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PsychologySame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207