MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089531307 · doi:10.1097/paf.0b013e3181ea1aa6

Autoerotic Nonlethal Filmed Hangings

2010· article· en· W2089531307 on OpenAlexaff
Anny Sauvageau, Corinne Ambrosi, Sean Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestraint-Related Deaths
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMidbrainMedicineConsciousnessPoison controlSurgeryPsychologyMedical emergencyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies of filmed hangings have documented the agonic sequences in these deaths. Considering this agonic sequence, one question comes to mind: which of these responses is an indicator of irreversible damage? Since decerebrate rigidity points toward lesions of the midbrain, it was initially thought that this posture could be an indicator of severe potentially irreversible damage. However, we here present a series of nonlethal filmed hangings by a 35-year-old male autoerotic practitioner, which will prove otherwise: in a film of an interrupted hanging, a decerebrate pattern of rigidity was observed at 20 seconds. However, the man later regained consciousness and seemed to present a full recovery without any noticeable symptoms. The scientific basis for the generalized assumption that death by hanging occur in 3 to 5 minutes will be reviewed. Though this estimation of the time is certainly precise and accurate enough for the needs of clinicians, it will be demonstrated that scientific evidence are not strong enough to be used in court. So how long does it take to suffer irreversible damage by hanging or by strangulation? The only honest and scientifically valid answer seems to be that we do not know.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicRestraint-Related DeathsFrench-language works237,207