Exploring the use of systematic and heuristic processing in the courtroom: the effect of evidence modality on jurors’ decision-making processes
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
The use of technology in the courtroom is increasingly commonplace. While some research has explored how technology may influence jurors throughout the trial itself, there has been little focus on how it might influence jurors during the deliberation period, or whether it affects their verdicts. The current study assessed whether the form of evidence available during the decision-making period, along with the mock juror’s level of motivation for the task, affects how trial information is processed and how verdict decisions are made. Mock-jurors (N = 243), half of whom were explicitly informed of the task’s importance, watched a video of a murder trial. During the decision-making phase, some jurors were then given the opportunity to review the trial video, transcript, or both before rendering a final verdict. While there were no differences in verdicts as a function of review condition, the amount of content mock-jurors reviewed differed by review condition.
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 | 0.011 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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