Legally Interred and Unlawful Burials: A Retrospective Study of Exhumation Cases in the Province of Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exhumations cases have been the focus of very few retrospective studies.In fact, no study ever described unlawful burials, while exhumations of legally interred bodies were only described by German studies.In the present study, exhumation cases of legally interred and unlawful burials performed over a six-year period (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) in the province of Quebec, Canada, were retrospectively analyzed.A total of 8 cases were found, representing 0.2% of all forensic autopsies and 0,0024% of all deaths.Of those, 5 were unlawful burials (62.5%), whereas the remaining 3 (37.5%)were legally interred bodies.Overall, the time of interment ranged from 2 weeks to 2 years.Forensic pathologists participated in 5 of the 8 (62.5%) exhumation cases.Exhumations rates in different populations are discussed, as well as reasons to conduct an exhumation and if the forensic pathologist must be present on the scene.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".