MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502434214 · doi:10.1002/9781118384213.ch7

Shot and beaten to death? Suspected projectile and blunt force trauma in a case involving an extended period of postmortem water immersion

2015· other· en· W1502434214 on OpenAlexaff
Hugo F.V. Cardoso, Katerina Puentes, Luís Coelho

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluntForensic anthropologyManner of deathContext (archaeology)ProjectileForensic pathologyForensic engineeringTaphonomyPoison controlSurgeryMedicineInjury preventionMedical emergencyEngineeringBiologyHistoryAutopsyPhysicsPathologyPaleontologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the key aspects of skeletal trauma analysis in forensic context is determining when traumatic event occurred relative to the moment of death, thereby identifying perimortem lesions that can be related to cause and circumstances of death. Due to varying circumstances in decomposition rates, time necessary for bone to become dry and lose “fresh bone” characteristics can extend for an indefinite period of time. Decomposition has been described as accelerating or retarding depending on a number of independent factors, including water's chemical characteristics as well as human bodily factors, such as body weight and presence of trauma. In practice, forensic anthropologists rely on thoughtful observation and consideration of taphonomic processes involved in order to accurately interpret skeletal trauma. This chapter describes a case of a violent death involving human remains in an advanced state of decomposition, where it appeared as if victim had been shot and beaten to death.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207