MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089740296 · doi:10.1097/paf.0b013e3181df62da

Homicide by Unspecified Means

2010· article· en· W2089740296 on OpenAlexaff
Evan W. Matshes, Emma O. Lew

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical examinerHomicideForensic pathologyMedicineCause of deathAutopsyMedical emergencyPoison controlInjury preventionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fundamental function of all North American systems of death investigation is to determine cause and manner of death. Modern teaching emphasizes the need to consider all investigative aspects including careful evaluation of the scene and circumstances, history, physical examination of the body, and ancillary laboratory studies, prior to death certification. This integrative approach to forensic pathology differs from an autopsy-focused practice whose function is to produce "anatomic" cause of death statements. Some individuals die under suspicious circumstances and, despite thorough autopsy, have no anatomic cause of death. In Miami-Dade County, when the preponderance of evidence and investigative data suggest homicide despite the absence of an identifiable cause of death, "homicide by unspecified means" has been used as a summative cause of death statement. The records of the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner Department were searched for this diagnosis, identifying 18 such cases between 1990 and 2004. The characteristics of these cases are discussed. Guidelines for the use of this diagnostic label are provided.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207