MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wrongful Convictions

2017· other· en· W4250253202 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Campbell, Myriam Denov, Jaime Lenet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Encyclopedia of Corrections · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvictionCommitMisconductEyewitness testimonyPsychologyCriminologyPolitical scienceLawSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wrongful convictions occur when individuals are found guilty of crimes they did not commit. However, recent evidence shows that such errors may not be as rare as was once thought. This entry traces the causes and consequences of wrongful conviction and the contributing factors discussed include eyewitness error, erroneous forensic science, false confessions, the use of jailhouse informants, professional and institutional misconduct, and racial bias. The profound consequences of wrongful conviction and policy responses are also reviewed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Encyclopedia of CorrectionsSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207