MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optical profilometry for forensic bloodstain imaging

2023· preprint· en· W4313892847 on OpenAlexafffund
Theresa Stotesbury, Brayden Vale, Amanda Orr, Colin Elliott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProfilometerKurtosisDeposition (geology)Surface finishSkewnessSurface (topology)Surface roughnessRough surfaceMaterials scienceTerm (time)OpticsGeologyMathematicsStatisticsComposite materialGeometryPhysicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the physical, chemical and biological changes that occur during the drying of a bloodstain is important in many aspects of forensic science including bloodstain pattern analysis and time since deposition estimation. This research assesses the use of optical profilometry to analyze changes in the surface morphology of degrading bloodstains created using three different volumes (4, 11, and 20 µL) up to four weeks after deposition. We analyzed six surface characteristics, including surface average roughness, kurtosis, skewness, maximum height, number of cracks and pits, and height distributions from the topographical scans obtained from bloodstains. Full and partial optical profiles were obtained to examine long-term (minimum of 1.5 hour intervals) and short-term (5 minute intervals) changes. The majority of the changes in surface characteristics occurred within the first 35 minutes after bloodstain deposition, in agreement with current research in bloodstain drying. Optical profilometry is a non-destructive and efficient method to obtain surface profiles of bloodstains, and can be integrated easily into additional research workflows including but not limited to time since deposition estimation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207