MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Agonal Sequences in Four Filmed Hangings: Analysis of Respiratory and Movement Responses to Asphyxia by Hanging*

2008· article· en· W2170304947 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestraint-Related Deaths
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphyxiaDecerebrationDecorticationMedicineAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been proposed that filmed hangings may hold the key to a better understanding of human asphyxia, and The Working Group on Human Asphyxia was formed to systematically review and compare these video recordings. This study analyzed eight filmed hangings. Considering time 0 to represent the onset of the final hanging, rapid loss of consciousness was observed (at 8-18 sec), closely followed by convulsions (at 10-19 sec). A complex pattern of decerebrate rigidity and decorticate rigidity then followed. Between 1 min 38 sec and 2 min 15 sec, muscle tone seemed to be lost, the body becoming progressively flaccid. From then on, isolated body movements were observed from time to time, the last one occurring between 1 min 2 sec and 7 min 31 sec. As for the respiratory responses, all cases presented deep rhythmic abdominal respiratory movements (last one between 1 min 2 sec and 2 min 5 sec).

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.268 · 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