Nonchemical Suffocation Deaths in Forensic Setting: A 6‐Year Retrospective Study of Environmental Suffocation, Smothering, Choking, and Traumatic/Positional Asphyxia*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are still several areas of forensic pathology mainly based on tradition, with textbooks explaining and describing common knowledge that is not supported by modern research data. This study is intended to contribute to evidence-based data on nonchemical suffocation deaths in the forensic population aged more than 1 year. From 2000 to 2005, all autopsy cases were reviewed: age, gender, type of suffocation, and manner of death were compiled for all victims (96 cases). In general, the results from this study are concordant with the textbook literature, therefore supporting common knowledge related to manner of death in nonchemical suffocation. However, discrepancies have been underscored in smothering: smothering, contrary to the general belief, is probably not mostly homicidal, and accidental smothering is probably not that unusual. Furthermore, new data without actual literature correlates were obtained in the conducting of this study and are presented here.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".