Nonverbal communication and deception detection: A short conversation between three young researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This conversation was published in French in the journal Commposite, and is translated herein with the authorization of this journal. Reference : Denault, V., Delmas, H. et Zloteanu, M. (2021). Communication non verbale et détection du mensonge : Une conversation entre trois jeunes chercheurs [Nonverbal communication and deception detection: A short conversation between three young researchers]. Commposite, 22(1), 107-119, Nonverbal communication and deception detection: A short conversation between three young researchers. In this conversation led by Vincent Denault of McGill University (Montreal) with Hugues Delmas of the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris) and Mircea Zloteanu of Kingston University (London), the three young researchers working on nonverbal communication and deception detection share their thoughts on the limits of research on these topics, as well as on the difficulties associated with the dialogue between researchers and practitioners. (20) (PDF) Nonverbal communication and deception detection: A short conversation between three young researchers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".