MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Suicidal Decapitation Using a Tractor Loader: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

2006· article· en· W2079031513 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Racette, Truong Tho Vo, Anny Sauvageau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestraint-Related Deaths
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoaderContext (archaeology)Poison controlMedicineSurgeryAnatomyEngineeringMedical emergencyHistoryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In forensic practice, decapitated bodies are predominantly associated with decapitation by wheels of trains or with postmortem dismemberment following homicide. In the suicidal context, decapitation accounts for less than 1% of total suicide. Apart from decapitation by trains, other encountered methods involve suicidal hanging and vehicle-assisted ligature suicide. Reported here is a unique case of suicidal decapitation in a 45-year-old man using a tractor loader at the foot of a silo, on his farm. The head was recovered in the loader and there were several impact spots from the loader as well as blood on the silo wall. The autopsy revealed a complete decapitation wound with the severance plane located between the third and fourth cervical vertebra. A 1.5 cm wide abrasion on the anterior part of the neck and abrasions under the chin were noted. This very unique case of intentional suicidal decapitation is the first reported case of a planned system intended to create decapitation outside the unique case of homemade guillotine and the more common decapitation by train.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicRestraint-Related DeathsFrench-language works237,207