MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268233337 · doi:10.1177/0093854815604179

A Lesson on Interrogations From Detainees

2015· article· en· W2268233337 on OpenAlexaff
Brent Snook, Dianna Brooks, Ray Bull

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterrogationConfession (law)InterviewPsychologyScale (ratio)Social psychologyClinical psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to predict confessions and cooperation from the elements of an interrogation was examined. Incarcerated men ( N = 100) completed a 50-item questionnaire about their most recent police interrogation, and regression analyses were performed on self-reported decisions to confess and cooperate. Results showed that the likelihood of an interrogation resulting in a confession was greatest when evidence strength and score on a humanitarian interviewing scale were high, and when the detainee had few previous convictions or did not seek legal advice. We also found that the level of cooperation was greatest when the humanitarian interviewing score was high, and when previous convictions were low. The implications of the findings for interrogation practices 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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207