Promotion of the use of a thermoplastic material to aid in the identification of unidentified human remains.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a recent effort to promote the use of a thermoplastic bite impression material for the identification of children. The American Board of Forensic Odontology is a certification board for forensic dentists in the United States and Canada. It is the position of the ABFO that this technique is of limited value when used for the dental identification of children. A presentation was made to the Odontology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in Dallas, Texas, in February 2004. The presentation promoted the use of a thermoplastic material to record the morphology of the human dentition for use by qualified personnel to identify missing persons. Currently, the target population for the recording of this information is children. In addition to recording the morphology of the dentition, the presenter claimed that the material, properly stored after impressing the teeth, could also be used as a source of DNA for identification purposes, as well as a source of the individual's scent to be used by tracking dogs. The weeks and months following this presentation generated significant comments and concerns regarding the information presented amongst members of the ABFO and members of the Odontology Section of AAFS. It was suggested that the ABFO look into this tooth impression method and comment on its validity and usefulness in the identification process. The following comments regarding this method have been formulated following significant input from diplomates of the ABFO. The ABFO is a certifying organization for dentists who wish to become board certified in the field of forensic odontology, and as such, requires its diplomates to maintain significant experience in the use of the human dentition for identification purposes. The ABFO also has a mission to promote and enhance the science of forensic odontology. As the ABFO primarily deals with the dentition, the comments in this paper will be confined to the use of the thermoplastic material as it relates to the dental identification process. Experts in DNA analysis and tracking should address the issues of DNA and scent.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.011 |
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".