The Emotional and Psychological Impact of Mass Casualty Incidents on Forensic Odontologists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by the findings of a previous research project, 38 forensic odontologists with known occupational experience of mass casualty incidents completed a questionnaire designed to elicit both quantitative and qualitative data. The questionnaire sought to provide an insight into the psychological and emotional impact of conducting work of this nature. Two psychometric scales were included in the questionnaire, The Positive and Negative Affect scale (PANAS) and the Impact of Events Scale (IOE). In addition, a number of open-ended questions relating to the personal experiences of the respondent during the mass casualty incident were also included. Quantitative findings indicate that on the whole mass casualty incidents resulted in a positive experience for the respondents, although over a third reported being distressed, upset or irritable at some time during the event. Sense of achievement and camaraderie were among the qualitative themes elicited that help explain the positive reactions. Working conditions, politics and the ictims were cited as sources of negativity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it