Working memory capacity is related to eyewitness identification accuracy, but selective attention and need for cognition are not
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
Individual differences in working memory capacity, selective attention, and need for cognition were investigated as postdictors—variables indicating the likelihood that an identification is accurate—using same-race and cross-race lineups. We also explored whether these variables improve predictions of identification accuracy when considering confidence and response time. White participants (N = 274) completed individual differences measures, watched four mock-crime videos (2 Asian targets, 2 White targets), made lineup decisions, and rated their confidence. Working memory capacity predicted identification accuracy and target-present accuracy but not target-absent accuracy. A regression model with confidence, response time, and working memory capacity explained more variance than a model with confidence and response time alone, indicating that working memory capacity tells us more about identification accuracy than extant reflector variables about identification accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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