MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558612674

A Qualitative Evaluation of the Effects Cleaning Products Have on the Bluestar Test for Latent Blood

2016· article· en· W2558612674 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForensic Fingerprint Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTileTest (biology)PsychologyForensic engineeringEngineeringArtVisual artsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In violent crimes, blood is one of the most common physical evidence that may be found. However, with the interest of forensic investigation being on the forefront for many years, criminals have become more knowledgeable about the necessity of cleaning their scene. Due to the attempted clean up, the effects of household chemical cleaners on presumptive tests might cause false positive or negative results. In order to assess this, cleaners (Clorox, Green Works, Lysol, and Windex) were used on floor surfaces (carpet, ceramic tile, and press-on vinyl tile), and their effects were qualitatively examined of on the Bluestar test for latent blood detection. This resulted in no effect by Windex and Green Works, a false-positive by Clorox, and a false-negative by Lysol.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForensic Fingerprint Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207