MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512009250 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13179

Retrospective Analysis of Hanging Deaths in Ontario

2016· article· en· W2512009250 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestraint-Related Deaths
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyForensic engineeringMedicineCriminologyEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hanging deaths from investigation standpoint are rarely problematic. Unusual circumstances can on occasion raise suspicion of foul play. Associated neck injuries are reported in the literature with variable frequency (from 0% to 76.8%). This study retrospectively analyzed 755 hanging deaths in Ontario (Canada) to evaluate the demographic features and circumstances of hanging fatalities, and the frequency of hanging-related neck injuries. A number of cases showed unusual/special circumstances (e.g., complex, double suicides, restraints). Among 632 cases with complete autopsies, hyoid and larynx fractures were present in 46 cases (7.3%) with the most common being isolated hyoid fractures. The incidence of cricoid fractures was 0.5% and cervical spine injuries, 1.1%. A higher incidence of neck injuries occurred among males, long drop hangings, and in cases with complete suspension. There was a tendency for the number of fractures to increase with increasing age and weight of the deceased.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.267 · 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