MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W206138794 · doi:10.1520/jfs15159j

Forensic Dental Identifications in the Greater Houston Area

2001· article· en· W206138794 on OpenAlexaff
VF Delattre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic dentistryForensic engineeringEngineeringMedicineDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to confirm the identity of the deceased, 1.7% of the deaths (162 cases) evaluated at the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office during the time period of this study required a forensic dental evaluation. Data were collected and analyzed. The manner of death was ranked in order as follows: 30% homicide; 20% accident of various types other than motor vehicle accidents; 18% motor vehicle accidents; 16% remain undetermined; 9% natural causes; and 7% suicide. The cause of death was: 24% asphyxia, smoke inhalation, or thermal burn injuries; 23% blunt-force trauma; 18% miscellaneous causes of death; 15% undetermined; 13% gun shot wounds; and 7% asphyxia. The condition of the remains were: 38% charred or incinerated; 31% decomposing; 18% skeletal remains; 6% "fresh" or recently deceased; 4% fragmented; and 3% severely beaten or mangled with displacement of the maxillomandibular region, complicating the dental identification procedure. The gender was: 62% male; 34% female; and 4% undetermined. The race was: 55% Caucasian; 19% Hispanic; 14% black; 1% Asian; and 11% undetermined. The age was: 2% from 0 to 10 years of age; 9% from 11 to 20; 21% from 21 to 30; 18% from 31 to 40; 13% from 41 to 50; 8% from 51 to 60; 5% from 61 to 70; 4% from 71 to 80; 1% from 81 to 90; and 19% undetermined. Further evaluation of these and future dental identification cases will provide valuable data to help prepare the forensic dentist for the wide variety of cases that must be evaluated in the course of their careers.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 studies0.0010.021
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207