MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804312942 · doi:10.23907/2017.032

Eternally Vulnerable: The Pathology of Abuse in Domestic Animals

2017· review· en· W2804312942 on OpenAlexaff
Beverly McEwen

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Forensic Pathology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectAnimal welfareContext (archaeology)Interpersonal violenceMedicineForensic pathologyPsychologyPoison controlPsychiatrySuicide preventionPathologyMedical emergencyBiologyAutopsyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals are amongst the most vulnerable of all sentient beings. Animal neglect and abuse may involve a single animal and one person, or hundreds of animals and many people. Animals and people are victims of the same types of fatal injury and severe neglect; however, the anatomy and physiology of different animal species and even breeds of animals are a unique challenge for veterinary pathologists. Identifying and describing external lesions of blunt force trauma and projectile wounds requires that the entire skin be reflected from the animal because fur and feathers partially or totally mask the injuries. Because quadrupeds or birds may react differently to the same traumatic force applied to bipedal humans, extrapolating from medical forensic pathology must be done with caution. Animal abuse, however, does not occur in a vacuum. An established link exists between animal abuse, interpersonal violence, and other serious crimes. Using examples, this paper describes specific injuries in abused and neglected animals in the context of domestic violence, interpersonal violence, mental illness, and drug addiction. Medical examiners should be aware that animal abuse affects not only the animal, but individuals, families, and society as a whole.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Forensic PathologySame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207