MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123822570 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12750

The Effect of Clothing on the Rate of Decomposition and Diptera Colonization on <i>Sus scrofa</i> Carcasses

2015· article· en· W2123822570 on OpenAlexaff
Allison Card, P. Cross, Colin Moffatt, Tal Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecompositionColonizationSignificant differenceForensic entomologyChemical process of decompositionVeterinary medicineBiologyClothingAnimal scienceZoologyDemographyToxicologyEcologyMathematicsForensic scienceGeographyStatisticsMedicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty Sus scrofa carcasses were used to study the effect the presence of clothing had on decomposition rate and colonization locations of Diptera species; 10 unclothed control carcasses were compared to 10 clothed experimental carcasses over 58 days. Data collection occurred at regular accumulated degree day intervals; the level of decomposition as Total Body Score (TBSsurf ), pattern of decomposition, and Diptera present was documented. Results indicated a statistically significant difference in the rate of decomposition, (t427 = 2.59, p = 0.010), with unclothed carcasses decomposing faster than clothed carcasses. However, the overall decomposition rates from each carcass group are too similar to separate when applying a 95% CI, which means that, although statistically significant, from a practical forensic point of view they are not sufficiently dissimilar as to warrant the application of different formulae to estimate the postmortem interval. Further results demonstrated clothing provided blow flies with additional colonization locations.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207