MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549738868 · doi:10.1520/jfs15214j

Bodies Found in the Waterways of New York City

2002· article· en· W1549738868 on OpenAlexaff
J Lucas, LB Goldfeder, James R. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic engineeringEngineeringCriminologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reviewed the case records for all decedents recovered from the waterways of New York City over a three year period (1997-2000). The epidemiological profile, circumstances, toxicology findings, putrefactive changes, date of recovery, length of immersion, and injuries were examined. There were 123 deaths: 52 suicides, 50 undetermined, 16 accidents, and five homicides. The causes of death included: 97 drownings, 13 undetermined, and 13 other. Of all the floating decedents, 27% were without putrefactive change. All found after two or more weeks of immersion were recovered from November to May. The detection of ethanol and illicit drugs was 53% in the accident, 41% in the suicide, and 33% in the undetermined groups. Detection of ethanol and/or drugs of abuse is not a reliable criterion to distinguish suicide from accident. The identification of the deceased is pivotal for determining the manner of these deaths. Therefore, a great reliance is placed upon the medical investigator and the police (including the missing persons bureau) to determine the circumstances and identification of the decedent.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207