What happened that day? Recall for events of a day that later became important
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore potential witnesses' memories for a day that was experienced an unremarkable. There may be instances in an investigation in which all leads have been exhausted, and investigators use a broad appeal for witnesses who may have witnessed something important. Investigators can benefit from knowing the types of information that may be recalled in such circumstances, as well as identifying specific methods that are effective in eliciting useful information. Design/methodology/approach The present study explored how the delay to recall and recall method influenced the recollection of a seemingly unremarkable day that later became important. Participants were asked to recall an experienced event that occurred either recently (a few weeks prior) or in the distant past (a year prior). Participants recalled via either a written method, in-person individual-spoken or collaborative-spoken interviews. Findings Results suggest an independent benefit for individual-spoken in-person recall (compared to written or collaborative-spoken recall) and recall undertaken closely after an event (compared to delayed recall). Both individual-spoken interviews as well as more recent recollection resulted in a greater number of overall details recalled. The authors further examined the types of details recalled that might be important to progressing an investigation (e.g. other witnesses and records). Originality/value The present work provides important implications for interviewing witnesses about a seemingly unremarkable event that later became important.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".