Le « langage » non verbal des témoins, quand les pseudosciences s’invitent au tribunal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME Selon la Cour supreme du Canada, le comportement non verbal des temoins peut affecter l’evaluation de leur credibilite (P. (D.) c. S. (C.) 1993). En effet, le juge des faits « a l'avantage, que n'a pas la cour d'appel, de voir et d'entendre les temoins » (R. c. W. (R.) 1992). Toutefois, puisque les professionnels de la justice croient erronement que differentes expressions faciales et gestes sont associes au mensonge (Stomwall et Granhag 2003; Porter et Ten Brinke 2009), l’analyse du comportement non verbal afin d’evaluer la credibilite souleve des questions. Ainsi, en continuite avec Denault (2015), l’objectif de cet article est de presenter un bilan de l’impact du comportement non verbal sur l’evaluation de la credibilite des temoins a la Chambre de la jeunesse de la Cour du Quebec. Puisque la credibilite est « une question omnipresente dans la plupart des proces, qui, dans sa portee la plus etendue, peut equivaloir a une decision sur la culpabilite ou l’innocence » (R. c. Handy 2002 : 115), les consequences potentiellement desastreuses de l’utilisation de techniques pseudoscientifiques pour decoder le « langage » non verbal des temoins (ex : synergologie) sont egalement discutees. ABSTRACTAccording to the Supreme Court of Canada, the non-verbal behavior of witnesses can affect the assessment of their credibility (P. (D.) v. S. (C.) 1993). Indeed, the trier of fact « has the advantage, denied to the appellate court, of seeing and hearing the evidence of witnesses » (R. c. W. (R.) 1992). However, since judicial professionals erroneously believe that different facial expressions and gestures are associated with lying (Stomwall and Granhag 2003; Porter and Ten Brinke 2009), the analysis of non-verbal behavior to assess credibility raises questions. Thus, in continuity with Denault (2015), the objective of this article is to present a summary of the impact of non-verbal behavior on the credibility assessment of witnesses at the Youth Division of the Court of Quebec. Since credibility is « an issue that pervades most trials, and at its broadest may amount to a decision on guilt or innocence » (R. c. Handy. 2002: 115), the potentially disastrous consequences of using pseudoscientific techniques to decipher the non-verbal « language » of witnesses (ex : synergology) are also 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".