MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607508262 · doi:10.23907/2016.044

The Role of the Anthropologist in the Identification of Migrant Remains in the American Southwest

2016· review· en· W2607508262 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce E. Anderson, M. Kate Spradley

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Forensic Pathology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Best practiceCriminologyMedical examinerState (computer science)Foundation (evidence)Political scienceGeographySociologyMedicineHuman factors and ergonomicsLawPoison controlEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the role of the forensic anthropologist in the identification of migrant remains in the American Southwest. These migrant cases present a unique set of circumstances that necessitate a regional approach to identification. The Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (PCOME), located in Tucson, Arizona has developed best practices that facilitate high identification rates of migrant deaths. These best practices have provided a foundation for other agencies that are faced with similar issues; namely, developing specific protocols for migrant deaths, working with nongovernmental humanitarian organizations, and sharing information have maximized identification efforts. In 2012, Texas surpassed Arizona in the number of migrant deaths. The Forensic Anthropology Center at Texas State (FACTS) began identification efforts for migrant remains found in Brooks County, Texas in 2013. Informed by best practices from the PCOME, FACTS has made successful identifications. Descriptions of the processes at both the PCOME and FACTS are described in detail.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Forensic PathologySame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207