MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W143188513

Death Investigation and the Coroner's Inquest

2006· book· en· W143188513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian Freckelton, David Ranson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Entomology and Zoology · 2006
Typebook
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronerInquestMedicineMedical examinerCause of deathMedical emergencyLawPoison controlPolitical scienceSuicide preventionPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Death Investigation from an Historical Perspective Death Investigation from an Internations Perspective Death Investigation: Operational Rules Deaths and Other Reported Incidents Death Investigation Powers of the Coroner Death Scene Investigation Specialist Death Scenes and Investigations International Disaster Management: Mass Fatalities The Role of the Forensic Pathologist The Autopsy: Medical Issues Autopsies: Legal and Cultural Issues Identification of Human Remains Specialist Medical and Scientific Investigations The Interpretation of Injuries and Medical Findings The Medical Report and the Giving of Evidence Advocacy Inquest Hearings Inquest Findings, Recommendations and Reports Appeals, Reviews and Reopening of Inquests Death Investigation and Coroners: The Future Appendix 1 Coronial Death Investigation: Operational Activities Appendix 2 Examples of coroners' findings and recommendations Appendix 3 A coroner's information booklet Appendix 4 The Australian National Coroners Information System Appendix 5 Medical report and pro forma checklists Appendix 6 Body Charts Appendix 7 Police death notification form for the coroner Appendix 8 Quebec Code of Ethics for Coroners Appendix 9 Practice direction: Guidelines for expert witnesses in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.012

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations82
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Entomology and ZoologySame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207