MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Preliminary Assessment of the Identification of Saw Marks on Burned Bone*

2009· article· en· W2156439355 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie‐Marie Marciniak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic anthropologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses the degree of modification to the saw mark characteristics of dismembered skeletal remains when exposed to a controlled outdoor fire of limited duration. The sample consists of 36 adult pig hind limbs which were dismembered fleshed. Six handsaws and six power saws were used, with three limbs dismembered and burned for each of the saw types. Results indicate that fire exposure affects the visibility and identifiability of saw mark striae. With the handsaws, the bow saw, hacksaw, and keyhole saw were consistently recognizable. In the power saw group, the saw marks of the jigsaw, reciprocating saw, and chainsaw remained identifiable. Although the bone ends exhibited thermal alterations, the false starts were well preserved with minimal damage. Given the parameters of this study, it is possible to identify the class of saw based on the diagnostic characteristics present on the cremated bones.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.014
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

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

Citations54
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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