Adult Eyewitness Memory for Single Versus Repeated Traumatic Events
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Reports from individuals who have witnessed multiple, similar emotional events may differ from reports from witnesses of only a single event. To test this, we had participants (N = 65) view a video of a road traffic accident. Half of the participants saw two additional (similar) aversive films. Afterwards, participants filled out the Self‐Administered Interview on the target film twice with an interval of 1 week. Participants who saw multiple similar films were less accurate in recalling details from the target film than participants in the control condition. On their second report, participants were less complete but more accurate compared with their first report. These results indicate that adults who have witnessed multiple repeated events may appear less reliable in their reports than adults who have witnessed a single event. These findings are relevant when evaluating eyewitness evidence and call for new approaches to questioning witnesses about repeated events.Copyright © 2017 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it