MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418965789 · doi:10.1520/jfs2002409

Bilateral Fractures of the Coronoid Processes: Differential Diagnosis of Intra-Oral Gunshot Trauma and Scavenging Using a Sheep Crania Model

2003· article· en· W2418965789 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cathy M. Puskas, DT Rumney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical ExaminerSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniaMandible (arthropod mouthpart)GUNSHOT INJURYPoison controlGunshot woundMedicineDentistryAnatomySurgeryBiologyZoologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately half of the skeleton of an adult male (minus the cranium) was found in a forested part of Greater Vancouver, Canada, in August 2000 by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Authorities ruled the death as suicide. The only compelling signs of perimortem trauma were symmetrically fractured coronoid processes of the mandible, which can be attributed to a gunshot in the mouth. However, the remains had also been scavenged by canids, raising a problem in differential diagnosis. Could canid scavenging produce bilateral fracturing of the mandible indistinguishable from gunshot wounds to the mouth? We found that canid scavengers could not mimic the type of damage to the mandible caused by intra-oral gunshot wounding using a sheep model (n = 20). Bilateral fracturing of the coronoid processes was found to be characteristic of intra-oral gunshot wounding, while canid scavengers typically ignore this region of the mandible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body InjuriesFrench-language works237,207