'Coalition-In-Iraq' countries 'internal' civil violent deaths compared to the USA 'external' violence of September 11th 2001.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The atrocity of 9/11 exemplified 'external' caused civil violent deaths, which have major policy implications for the countries contributing armed forces to the 'Coalition-In-Iraq' [C.I.I]. C.I.I Government's resources for perennial 'internal' violent deaths (suicide, homicide and road), are likely to be threatened by alternative priorities. C.I.I 'internal' deaths are compared with those of 9/11 to provide information to determine relative risks. MATERIAL/METHODS: To uniformly compare mortality between countries we utilise the most recent WHO mortality data, taking the latest three years 1997-1999 and calculating an average annual number and rate of 'internal' deaths in each country, these are compared with the 9/11 fatalities, calculating a proportional ratio, as an indicator of differential damage to families and society. RESULTS: USA 'external' deaths were 3,074 people and annual average suicides were 30,966. Total 'internal' deaths exceeded 'external' more than 30 times. Every fortnight there are more USA 'internal' violent deaths than on 9/11. Except Australia and Bulgaria, every country had more suicides than died on 9/11. Apart from Bulgaria, total 'internal' deaths exceeded the 'external' toll in all other CAI countries- by 14 times in Japan; 6 in Republic of Korea, 4 in Italy, 3 in Spain and the UK, twice in Canada and 1.5 times in Australia. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of 'internal' civil violent deaths, such as suicide, highlight the perennial pressures upon psychiatric services and the need to defend resources at a time of competing priorities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".