MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DNA Preservation in Skeletal Elements from the World Trade Center Disaster: Recommendations for Mass Fatality Management*<sup>,†</sup>

2009· article· en· W2141097600 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Z. Mundorff, Eric J. Bartelink, Elaine Mar‐Cash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld trade centerPoison controlCase fatality rateForensic engineeringMedicineToxicologyBiologyEnvironmental healthEngineeringGeographyArchaeologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Trade Center (WTC) victim identification effort highlights taphonomic influences on the degradation of DNA from victims of mass fatality incidents. This study uses a subset of the WTC-Human Remains Database to evaluate differential preservation of DNA by skeletal element. Recovery location, sex, and victim type (civilian, firefighter, or plane passenger) do not appear to influence DNA preservation. Results indicate that more intact elements, as well as elements encased in soft tissue, produced slightly higher identification rates than more fragmented remains. DNA identification rates by element type conform to previous findings, with higher rates generally found in denser, weight-bearing bones. However, smaller bones including patellae, metatarsals, and foot phalanges yielded rates comparable to both femora and tibiae. These elements can be easily sampled with a disposable scalpel, and thus reduce potential DNA contamination. These findings have implications for DNA sampling guidelines in future mass fatality incidents.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations153
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207