MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Child and Adolescent Victims in Forensic Autopsy: A 5‐Year Retrospective Study*

2008· article· en· W2040157698 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anny Sauvageau, Stéphanie Racette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic scienceHomicideCoronerMedicineForensic pathologyRetrospective cohort studyMedical examinerAutopsyBluntPoison controlAsphyxiaInjury preventionPediatricsOccupational safety and healthCause of deathSuicide preventionMedical emergencySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children of more than 3 years of age and adolescents have been largely overlooked in the forensic literature, especially the 4-9 age group. Thus, the present study was undertaken to address this particular issue of child and adolescent victims in forensic autopsies. On a 5-year period (2000-2004) in Quebec province (Canada), all forensic autopsy cases of children and adolescents from 4 to 19 years of age were retrospectively studied. A total of 223 cases of child and adolescent deaths (148 males, 75 females; 6.6% of all forensic autopsies) were reviewed. Age, gender, manner of death and cause of death were analyzed for all victims organized into three groups of age: 4-9, 10-14, and 15-19. Moreover, homicide cases (n = 54) are further analyzed in terms of method(s) used (firearm, sharp force, asphyxia, blunt force, intoxication). This 5-year retrospective study may contribute to a better understanding of typical deaths in the 4-19 group of age and therefore, bring a working basis for the forensic pathologist or medical examiner/coroner.

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)0.001
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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207