MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of the Backtrack™ Computer Program for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis of Stains from Downward-Moving Drops

2005· article· en· W2010203413 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mike Illes, A.L. Carter, P.L. Laturnus, Atsuhiro Yamashita

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicForensic and Genetic Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersTrent University
KeywordsComputer graphics (images)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTUsing Directional Analysis, the BackTrack™ suite of computer programs can be used to analyze a crime scene in which bloodstains only from downward-moving drops are available. Only two of three Cartesian coordinates for the blood source location can be accurately determined, but this is still significantly better than the stringing and tangent methods, which cannot accommodate the stains from downward-moving drops without great difficulty. Crime scene investigators with access to this computer program should be aware of the program's ability to use data that cannot be used easily in other methods of analysis.RÉSUMÉGrâce à une analyse directionnelle, la suite de logiciel BackTrack™ peut être employée pour analyser une scène de crime où seules des taches de sang provenant de gouttes tombées d'en haut et en mouvement sont présentes. Maglré le fait que seules deux des trois coordonnées cartésiennes du lieu de la source de sang peuvent être déterminées, cette méthode est significativement meilleure que les méthodes avec cordes et tangentes, qui ne peuvent accommoder ces sortes de taches qu'avec grande difficulté. Les enquêteurs en scène de crime ayant accès à ce logiciel doivent être avisés des capacités d'analyse de certaines données qui ne pourraient pas être facilement utilisées avec d'autres méthodes d'analyse.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society of Forensic Science JournalSame topicForensic and Genetic ResearchFrench-language works237,207