A geophysical and biochemical investigation of buried remains in contrasting soil textures in southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a non-invasive, geophysical tool used for the\ndetection of clandestine graves. GPR operates by detecting density differences in soil by\nthe transmission of high frequency electromagnetic (EM) waves from an antenna. A 500\nMegahertz (MHz) frequency antenna is typically used for forensic investigations, as it\nprovides a suitable compromise between depth of penetration and sub-surface\nresolution. Domestic pig (Sus scrofa) carcasses were clothed in 100% cotton t-shirts and\n50% cotton/50% polyester briefs, and buried at a consistent depth at three field sites of\ncontrasting soil texture (silty clay loam, fine sand and fine sandy loam) in southern\nOntario. GPR was used to detect and monitor the graves for a period of 14 months post\nburial. Analysis of collected data revealed that GPR had applicability in the detection of\nclandestine graves containing remains in silty clay loam and fine sandy loam soils, but\nwas not suitable for detection in fine sandy soil. Specifically, within a fine sandy loam\nsoil, there is the potential to estimate the post burial interval (PBI), as hyperbolic grave\nresponse was well defined at the beginning of the 14 month burial duration, but\nbecame less distinctive near the completion of the study.\nFollowing the detection of a clandestine grave containing a carcass, collection of\ngravesoil, tissue and textile samples is important for the estimation of the stage of\ndecomposition and the post burial interval (PBI) of the remains. Throughout the\ndecomposition process of a carcass, adipose tissue is subjected to hydrolytic enzymes\nthat convert triglycerides to their corresponding unsaturated, saturated and salts of\nfatty acids. The composition of fatty acids in the decomposed tissue will vary with the\npost mortem period, but it is unknown what affect the soil texture has on lipid\ndegradation. As decomposition proceeds, fatty acids can leach from the tissues into the\nsurrounding burial environment. Fatty acid analysis of gravesoil, tissue and textile\nsamples, exhumed at two, eleven and fourteen month post burial intervals, was\nconducted using diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy (DRIFTS),\nattenuated total reflectance ??? Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy and\ngas chromatography ??? mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Infrared (IR) spectroscopy analysis\nof the samples provided a qualitative profile of lipid degradation. Analysis of gravesoil\nsamples did not reveal IR spectroscopy bands attributable to fatty acid degradation or\nadipocere formation. IR spectroscopy analysis of tissue samples is applicable for the\nestimation of carcass decomposition in all of the soil textures tested. Results of textile IR\nspectroscopy analysis revealed limited potential to estimate the stage of carcass\ndecomposition in silty clay loam soil. GC-MS was used to quantify the peak area ratio\n(area/int std area) (PAR) of myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0), palmitoleic (C16:1), stearic\n(C18:0) and oleic (C18:1) acids. GC-MS results revealed that analysis of both tissue and\ntextile samples can be useful in the estimation of the stage of decomposition and the\nPBI of carcasses in all three of the soil textures tested.\nThe results of this research may have applicability within forensic investigations\ninvolving decomposing bodies by aiding in the location of clandestine graves in silty clay\nloam and fine sandy loam soil through the use of GPR. Infrared spectroscopy and GC-MS\nanalysis of the fatty acid composition of tissue and textile samples may also be\nincorporated into investigational protocols to aid in the estimation of the stage of\ndecomposition and the PBI of a body.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".