MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392056509 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ze427

Does "very confident" mean very confident? Lay perceptions of what of what is low, medium, and high eyewitness confidence

2024· preprint· en· W4392056509 on OpenAlexaff
Jamal K. Mansour, Jonathan P. Vallano

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyEyewitness testimonySocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eyewitnesses typically communicate identification confidence to law enforcement in their own words. Despite a positive confidence-accuracy relationship when confidence is measured numerically (and identifications uncontaminated), there is no clear basis for determining whether oft-ambiguous verbal phrases indicate low, medium, or high confidence. Participants indicated which percentages they associate with low, medium, and high confidence or judged whether percentages signal low, medium, and high confidence. They also provided numeric interpretations of verbal phrases. Laypersons considered 80%+ as high confidence and the level of confidence they believed was intended with words and numbers varied considerably. Miscommunications about eyewitness confidence may be common.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207