Examining Confidence Accuracy, Observation Skills, and the Dunning Kruger Effect
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
Using a quantitative approach, this study examines the confidence accuracy relationship of eyewitness memory and observation skills and explores the relationship between self-perception and accuracy (The Dunning Kruger Effect). The present study has three purposes. The first purpose is to highlight the importance of understanding one's limitations and self-assessment abilities to ensure effective training and preparedness for high-stress situations of a police officer. The second purpose is to show that eyewitness memory accounts in consequential settings such as court should not rely on confidence as an indicator of accuracy. The third purpose is to show that eyewitness accounts of police officers are not always more correct than those of civilians. Using Humber College’s Conflict Resolution FAAC Digital Simulator, 18 subjects (17 students and 1 police officer) were assigned to take part in a virtual, pre-recorded simulation experiment. Participants’ confidence in observation skills and their eyewitness memory abilities were assessed. Results found no correlation between confidence and accuracy in eyewitness memory, though it revealed that people can be extremely confident in their wrong answers, demonstrating that confidence is not always a good indicator of accuracy. Despite assumptions that police officers make better eyewitnesses, findings include that there was no significant difference in memory abilities between the police officer and Humber students.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it