MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Autoerotic Deaths in the Literature from 1954 to 2004: A Review

2006· review· en· W1982938740 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestraint-Related Deaths
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphyxiaMedicineElectrocutionLigatureHomicidePoison controlForensic pathologyInjury preventionSurgeryAutopsyPediatricsMedical emergencyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autoerotic death by hanging or ligature is a method of autoeroticism well known by forensic pathologists. In order to analyze autoerotic deaths of nonclassic hanging or ligature type, this paper reviews all published cases of autoerotic deaths from 1954 to 2004, with the exclusion of homicide cases or cases in which the autoerotic activity was not solitary. These articles were obtained through a systematic Medline database search. A total of 408 cases of such deaths has been reported in 57 articles. For each case, the following characteristics are presented here: sex, age, race, method of autoerotic activity, cause of death, and location where the body was found. Autoerotic death practioners were predominantly Caucasian males. Victims were aged from 9 to 77 years and were mainly found in various indoor locations. Most cases were asphyxia by hanging, ligature, plastic bags, chemical substances, or a mixture of these. Still, atypical methods of autoerotic activity leading to death accounted for about 10.3% of cases in the literature and are classified here into five broad categories: electrocution (3.7%), overdressing/body wrapping (1.5%), foreign body insertion (1.2%), atypical asphyxia method (2.9%), and miscellaneous (1.0%). All these atypical methods are further discussed individually.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.329 · 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