Eyewitness Factors Influencing the Mock Juror Decision-making Process: Age, Familiarity, and Social Support
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
Mock jurors (N = 281) read a trial transcript of an armed robbery at a convenience store. The transcripts varied by eyewitness age (10, vs. 15, vs. 20-years-old), degree of witness-perpetrator interaction (i.e. familiarity), and the degree of social support experienced by the witness during the crime (demonstrated through the presence/absence of a supportive figure such as a mother (i.e. high vs. low social support). The influence of these variables on jurors' perceptions of eyewitness' credibility, reliability, and accuracy as well as the decision of defendant's guilt, were investigated. The presence of social support influenced jurors' decisions regarding the defendant's guilt, where jurors in the low social support condition (i.e. alone) compared to the high social support condition (i.e. with mother) were nearly twice as likely to conclude that the defendant was not guilty. No significant group differences were found among the other factors; namely, eyewitness age and familiarity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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