Psychological effect computation of courtroom arguments: A deep learning approach of EEG signal data
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
Previous studies have shown that the attorney?s speeches can exert significant impacts on the cognition and judgment of the jury in court arguments. However, the psychological effects induced by these speeches are intricately tied to subconscious brain states, making them challenging to accurately and comprehensively describe through subjective self-reports. This study aims to explore a neural reaction observation method for psychological effect analysis of the attorney?s speeches in courtroom scenarios. We utilized a corpus of courtroom arguments from legal movies and television series as source material. Participants? psychological responses to these speeches were monitored using wearable electroencephalography (EEG) devices. Building upon this data, we employed a deep learning model based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks to compute attention intensity, cognitive load, and emotional changes. Our test results demonstrate that this approach enables continuous and dynamic computation within courtroom argument contexts, providing a more accurate assessment of attorneys? language skills.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 it