MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099639698 · doi:10.1039/b609130j

Challenges in forensic toxicology of skeletonised human remains

2006· article· en· W2099639698 on OpenAlexaff
James H. Watterson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic toxicologyDrugIngestionMedicinePhysiologyPathologyPharmacologyChemistryInternal medicineChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forensic toxicologists typically work with body fluids such as blood or urine, as well as visceral tissues such as liver. Very little work has been done to properly understand the utility of drug concentrations in bone tissue in a toxicologic examination. Literature reports suggest that detection of selected drugs in bone tissues is possible, but challenging work remains to determine the implications of bone tissue drug concentration measurements with respect to time lines of drug ingestion and deposition into bone, tissue sampling and sensitivity requirements, and environmental effects on measurements and their interpretation.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207