Forensic Archaeological Recovery of a Large‐Scale Mass Disaster Scene: Lessons Learned from Two Complex Recovery Operations at the World Trade Center Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, unexpected discoveries of buried World Trade Center (WTC) debris and human remains were made at the World Trade Center mass disaster site. New York City's Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) was given the task of systematically searching the site for any remaining victims' remains. The subsequent OCME assessment and archaeological excavation conducted from 2006 until 2013, resulted in the recovery of over 1,900 victims' remains. In addition, this operation demonstrated the essential skills archaeologists can provide in a mass disaster recovery operation. The OCME excavation data illustrates some of the challenges encountered during the original recovery effort of 2001/2002. It suggests that when understood within the larger site recovery context, certain fundamental components of the original recovery effort, such as operational priorities and activities in effect during the original recovery, directly or indirectly resulted in unsearched deposits that contained human remains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".