Specific Patterns of Canine Scavenging in Indoor Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postmortem animal mutilations due to domestic dogs in isolated domestic deaths are taphonomic modifications regularly observed by forensic pathologists. They are rarely described in the literature; however, even though they present specific patterns. Through 41 cases, 10 at the forensic institute in Lille (France) and 31 at the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (USA), plus 22 cases from the literature, specific locations and patterns of postmortem scavenging lesions are proposed. These lesions are mainly distributed in three locations: the face, especially the nose and the mouth (73.1%), the neck (43.1%), and the arm (shoulder/upper limb [29.2%], hand [26.8%]). We discuss the time span between death and scavenging, the consequences on identification, and comparison with outdoor settings. Outdoor scavenging lesions are mainly located on the trunk and limbs usually sparing the head, which strongly differs from indoor distribution and imply different animal motivations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".