MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983131281 · doi:10.1097/paf.0b013e3181eafe05

Deer Stand Fatalities in Kentucky

2011· article· en· W1983131281 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa B. E. Shields, Donna Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical examinerBluntAsphyxiaGeographyAccidentalMedicineMedical emergencyPoison controlInjury preventionSurgeryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hunting many types of wild game is an avidly pursued outdoor activity that attracts all ages and both genders at various times of the year. Deer hunting is a popular sport in many regions of North America. A variety of weapons are used in the hunting, trapping, and killing of game. As a variety of different modalities are used, myriad types of injuries unique to the type of hunting can occur. Most deer hunting-related fatalities identified at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Kentucky are accidental firearm injuries. Less commonly encountered are fatalities resulting from elevation of the hunter in a tree stand, often associated with poor design or construction of the perch. We present 2 tree stand-related deaths. One victim died of positional asphyxia due to reverse suspension from a hunting tree stand. The second victim died of multiple blunt force injuries sustained in a 20-foot fall from a tree stand. We summarize the features of morbidity and mortality related to deer hunting based on investigations by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body InjuriesFrench-language works237,207