MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125125972

Will the Brain Ever Take the Stand? Canadian Law and the Admissibility of Neurotechnology Lie Detection Evidence

2010· article· en· W3125125972 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jocelyn Downie

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge@SchulichLaw · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLie detectionPsychologyLawSection (typography)Political scienceComputer scienceDeception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is organized into four sections. The first section provides arguments to support the claim that an encounter between Canadian courts and Neurotechnology Lie Detection Evidence (NTLD) appears imminent; to this end, examples of increasing awareness of NTLD are discussed along with evidence of the introduction of related neurotechnologies in Canadian and U.S. courts. co-authors: Victoria Apold, Matthew R Kutcher

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.027
Scholarly communication0.0170.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0180.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge@SchulichLawSame topicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsFrench-language works237,207