MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810952229 · doi:10.23907/2017.031

The Dead Detainee: The Autopsy in Cases of Torture

2017· review· en· W2810952229 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

VenueAcademic Forensic Pathology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortureHomicideInterrogationForensic pathologyCriminologyMedicineAutopsyMedical emergencyLawPoison controlPsychiatryHuman rightsSuicide preventionPsychologyPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fatal maltreatment of people that are detained against their will, such as political prisoners and suspected terrorists, can occur in unstable countries. The death of such detainees is often controversial and debated in the media, legal tribunals, and communities. Therefore, there is a need for nonpartisan information about the cause of death of prisoners due to the implications that the data may have about a conclusion that human rights were abused. Autopsies are the only scientific way to prove the cause of death of detainees and to ascertain the truth behind how injuries may have occurred. On this basis, all forensic pathologists ought to be able to interpret the basic injury patterns commonly encountered in torture. The injuries are similar to those found in child abuse, but also include trauma from suspension and "homicide by heart attack" during interrogation. This paper will review the postmortem findings in cases of torture.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.259 · 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