MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Steadily Increasing Control: The Professionalization of Mass Death

2011· article· en· W2146512783 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christopher Stoney, Joseph Scanlon, Kirsten Kramar, Tanya R. Peckmann, Ian E. Brown, Cynthia Lynn Cormier, Coen van Haastert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contingencies and Crisis Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of WinnipegCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProfessionalizationIdentification (biology)CriminologyControl (management)State (computer science)HistoryForensic engineeringLawPolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyManagementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent mass death incidents in Japan and Haiti have again focused attention on the challenge of dealing with large numbers of dead. Focusing on mass death incidents involving large numbers of Canadian victims, including the Titanic, Halifax explosion, Air India bombing and the 2004 Tsunami, the paper researches incidents dating back to the beginning of the 20th Century. By examining each stage of the process including initial response, identification, funerals, communication, religious services and inquests, the paper identifies key changes in the way that mass death incidents are handled. For example, the research identifies greater professionalization and state control of mass death incidents, increased reliance on experts and technology and increased emphasis on accurate identification, through forensics, and causes, through inquests and inquiries.

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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contingencies and Crisis ManagementSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207