Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the current practices within the medicolegal death investigation system, as well as the experience of bereaved parents due to sudden unexpected child death with regard to viewing, memorial keepsakes, and communication during the death investigation. Convenience samples of 197 professionals and 156 bereaved parents participated. Respondents were asked to participate in an online survey. Results show that the majority of professional respondents (96.5%) allow the next of kin (NOK) to view his/her child before transport to the morgue while holding the infant/child was somewhat less commonplace (68.9%). The majority of professional respondents (70.4%) would also permit memorial keepsakes to be made. Additional factors are explored that both hinder and promote these common family requests. Furthermore, professional practices and NOK experiences in regard to communicating preliminary and final cause of death information to the NOK were highly variable. This article provides a snapshot at the current death investigative practices in the United States, as well as how these practices are received by NOK along with their recommendations for change. These results may be used to further inform future guidelines to improve comprehensive and efficient death investigations that support the emotional needs of the newly bereaved.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".