MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060983400 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12138

Evolution of the Psychological Autopsy: Fifty Years of Experience at the Los Angeles County Chief Medical Examiner‐Coroner's Office

2013· article· en· W2060983400 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy Botello, Thomas T. Noguchi, Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, Linda E. Weinberger, Bruce H. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronerMedical examinerAutopsyMedicineSuicide preventionPsychiatryPoison controlFamily medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The origin of the psychological autopsy was in the late 1950s and the result of a collaboration between the Los Angeles County Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner's Office and the Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Center. It was conceptualized as a thorough retrospective analysis of the decedent's state of mind and intention at the time of death. It was used initially in "equivocal" deaths where the manner of death was possibly either suicide or accident. Later, it was used in cases where a party (primarily family members) protested the Medical Examiner-Coroner's suicide determination. Over the past 25 years, the University of Southern California Institute of Psychiatry, Law, and Behavioral Science has served as the psychiatric/psychological consultants to the Coroner's Department. Research findings, the use of this approach in high-profile cases, and the most recent manner in which the psychological autopsy is conducted are discussed.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207