MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402836498 · doi:10.1080/24732850.2024.2408388

Contesting Confessions: Opinions of Expert Witnesses

2024· article· en· W4402836498 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey S. Kaplan, Jessica Lundy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeception detection and forensic psychology
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOntario Tech University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A confession is a crucial factor to address in mounting a competent criminal defense, making expert witnesses in this field an important resource for attorneys. While there is a strong base of research on false confessions, there is little such research and no formal guidelines in the way to most effectively proffer this information. Through structured interviews with 20 expert witnesses, we probed their processes, recommendations, and common challenges they encounter challenging confession evidence. Based on their feedback we offer recommendations, present new research hypotheses, and discuss the need for expert witnesses to identify best practices and standardize the profession.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic Psychology Research and PracticeSame topicDeception detection and forensic psychologyFrench-language works237,207