MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157209098 · doi:10.1177/0093854809335142

Peering Inside a Canadian Interrogation Room

2009· article· en· W2157209098 on OpenAlex
Lesley G. King, Brent Snook

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterrogationPeeringPsychologyComputer securitySocial psychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to shed light on the interrogation process through analysis of 44 video-recorded police interrogations of suspects in criminal cases. Results showed that, on average, interrogators used 34% of the components composing the nine-step Reid model of interrogation. Approximately 27% of the interrogations met Leo's criteria for a coercive interrogation; minimization tactics were observed slightly more than maximization tactics; and most interrogations followed the guidelines, suggestions, and themes endorsed by Inbau, Reid, Buckley, and Jayne. In addition, confessions were positively associated with the proportion of core Reid components, the number of influence tactics, and the number of coercive strategies observed. Confessions were not associated with the number of discouraged denials but were positively associated with the number of alternative questions provided. The implications of these findings for interrogation practices and research 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.

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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.300 · 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