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 OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Pollanen

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.204
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

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Forensic PathologySame topicTorture, Ethics, and LawFrench-language works237,207