Assessing Customs Officers’ Use of the Cognitive Interview for Suspects
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
The Cognitive Interview for Suspects (CIS) is a science-based technique that helps suspectsprovide detailed, accurate information without coercion. In this study, customs officersemploying the CIS gathered 29% more details than those using Standard Interviewing (SI)techniques. The CIS is time-efficient. Relative to SIs, interviews conducted using the CIS were shorter and contained fewer questions, yet yielded more information overall. The CIS, therefore, may be particularly useful in contexts in which time and resource constraints are frequently experienced. The source article found that officers trained in the CIS were more accurate in identifyingdeceptive statements than untrained officers, indicating that CIS training may enhanceinvestigators’ ability to detect deception. However, further research is necessary to validatethese findings; investigators should remain cautious when making determinations regardingsuspect statement veracity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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