MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606990000 · doi:10.23907/2011.036

An Overview of Statistics for Forensic Pathologists

2011· article· en· W2606990000 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline L. Parai

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Forensic Pathology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic scienceForensic pathologyData scienceComputer scienceStatistical analysisMedicineStatisticsPathologyMathematicsAutopsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of good quality research is now one of the expectations for those working in forensic science and forensic pathology. Although potentially daunting, this necessary and important goal can be realized with the appropriate selection and utilization of statistical tools in the analysis of research projects in the forensic sciences. As detailed textbooks on statistics are available, this article provides an overview of how to organize data commonly seen in forensic pathology and which statistical procedures should be performed.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0160.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.015

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Forensic PathologySame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207