Potential jurors’ perceptions of interrogations and confessions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian potential jurors (N = 377) were surveyed about their perceptions of police interrogation practices, confession evidence, and factors contributing to false confessions. Most respondents (85%) acknowledged the possibility of false confessions, but over half (56%) still associated confessions with guilt. Overt interrogation tactics like physical threats and explicit promises of leniency were seen as likely to elicit false confessions due to their coerciveness, while subtler methods like implied leniency were underestimated in their coerciveness and potential to elicit false confessions. Additionally, most respondents (85%) supported the use of expert testimony on false confessions to aid verdict decision-making. The findings suggest that potential jurors may possess some accurate understandings of confession dynamics but also hold significant misconceptions, particularly regarding their own vulnerability to false confessions and the risks posed by implicit coercion. The implications for juror education, expert testimony, and legal reforms to mitigate the risks associated with confession evidence are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".