MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discrimination of Falls and Blows in Blunt Head Trauma: Assessment of Predictability Through Combined Criteria*

2009· article· en· W2034947265 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityBluntBlunt traumaHead (geology)Head traumaPoison controlInjury preventionForensic anthropologySurgeryMedicineForensic engineeringPsychologyMedical emergencyStatisticsHistoryEngineeringMathematicsArchaeologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The discrimination of falls from homicidal blows in blunt head injuries is a common but difficult problem in both forensic anthropology and pathology. Three criteria have been previously proposed for this distinction: the hat brim line rule, side lateralization of fractures, and number of lacerations. The aim of the present study was to achieve a better distinction rate by combining those criteria and assess the predictability of these combined criteria tools. Over a 6-year period, a total of 114 cases (92 males and 22 females) were studied: 21 cases of downstairs falls, 29 cases of falls from one's own height, and 64 cases of head trauma by a blunt weapon. The results revealed predictability rates varying from 62.5 to 83.3% for criteria pointing towards a fall. As for combined criteria in favor of a blow, the assumption was accurate in all cases (100%).

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.342 · 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