MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205635917 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14631

Hard to Believe: The Unreliabilty of Eyewitness Testimony

2021· dissertation· en· W4205635917 on OpenAlexaff
Somerled Cameron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEyewitness testimonyPsychologySet (abstract data type)Economic JusticeEpistemologyDoxastic logicLawCriminologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the turn of the century, psychologists started to discover that eyewitness testimony was not as reliable as once thought.The findings have largely remained unincorporated into the legal process, resulting in miscarriages of justice.Drawing on the psychological research, and a reliabilist framework of doxastic justification, the author derives a sample set of epistemic norms to replace our unscientific colloquial norms; arguing that empirically backed norms, in addition to addressing legal injustices, would also go a long way towards addressing epistemic injustices.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207