The Effects of Delay on Long-Term Memory for Witnessed Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If an event is recognized as being of forensic interest and if it is reported to the authorities, eyewitnesses’ descriptions of its details, including its environmental (spatial and temporal) context, the persons involved, and their conversations, comments, and actions, are usually gathered within minutes, hours, or days after the event. However, given the procedures and vagaries of most investigations and justice systems, subsequent eyewitness descriptions of the event may not be heard at inquiries or trials for months or years later. If, in contrast, the event is not so recognized or if it is not reported to the authorities, or if investigators require substantial time to develop the case, the first recall of its details may not occur for even longer periods of time. That is, witnesses are not always aware that they have, in fact, witnessed a criminal act, and some are reluctant to report a crime that they know has been committed. For example, fraud (e.g., passing of bogus checks) may not be recognized as such for a considerable period of time (months to years). Recall of other types of witnessed events is also often on the order of years; for example, recollection of child sexual abuse (CSA) by adult complainants (usually victims, sometimes witnesses) is delayed for a variety of reasons, including a failure to interpret the alleged events as criminal or abusive (Connolly & Read, 2003). Moreover, unlike the single events of, for instance, assault, robbery, or fraud, adults’ recollections of some crimes (like CSA and spousal assault) may also include descriptions of multiple repeated and interrelated events. In rare cases, witnesses have been exposed to multiple independent crimes (e.g., bank robberies and terrorist attacks), and recall of each could be examined (e.g., Christianson & Hubinette, 1993; Connolly & Price, 2005; Edery-Halpern & Nachson, 2004).
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 | 0.006 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".