MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Asphyxial Suicide with Helium and a Plastic Bag

2002· article· en· W2077954748 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestraint-Related Deaths
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeliumMedicineMedical emergencySuicide preventionInhalationPoison controlPsychiatryPsychologyForensic engineeringEngineeringPhysicsAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide by helium inhalation inside a plastic bag has recently been publicized by right-to-die proponents in "how to" print and videotape materials. This article reports a suicide performed according to this new and highly lethal technique, which is also a potentially undetectable cause of death. Toxicology information could not determine helium inhalation, and drug screening did not reveal data of significance. The cause of death could be determined only by the physical evidence at the scene of death. Helium inhalation can easily be concealed when interested parties remove or alter evidence. To ensure that their deaths are not documented as suicide, some individuals considering assisted suicide may choose helium methods and assistance from helpers. Recent challenges to Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law may increase interest in helium instead of barbiturates for assisted suicide.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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