La spontanéité du discours, un facteur déterminant la crédibilité des témoins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During trials, the nonverbal communication of witnesses and their vocal characteristics, as well as other elements related to the content of their testimony, can affect their credibility. Indeed, various impressions can emerge from observing and hearing a witness. One of them, spontaneity, could contribute to the appraisal of testimonies or witnesses. However, in practice, the role of spontaneity is poorly documented. This paper aims to help fill this void. Using a qualitative and inductive approach, 47 judgments from Quebec disciplinary courts that conclude to the presence or absence of spontaneity were analysed. The results of our analysis show that spontaneity appears to be an important factor in the appraisal of testimonies or witnesses, in that spontaneity seems to be associated with veracity. Yet, the very little scientific literature on the association between spontaneity and veracity is much more nuanced. Finally, because credibility assessment is affected by many erroneous beliefs and cognitive biases, the importance of transferring scientific knowledge from the academic community to justice professionals is discussed in this paper.
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 | 0.007 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".