A preliminary study evaluating the relationship between force and incised trauma on pig rib bones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In forensic contexts, understanding of the complicated relationships between level of force, type of knife blade, and dimensions of incisions remains limited. The purpose of this research was to explore how incisions on pig rib bones vary depending on the type of knife blade and quantity of perpendicular force inflicted. A cutting rig (designed to position a bone, knife, and weights) facilitated the creation of incisions on fleshed rib bones (n = 59), defleshed rib bones (n = 77), and synthetic materials (n = 36). Five different masses of weights (measuring 4381, 8861, 13515, 18267, and 23343 g) were applied to four knife blades (two serrated and two non-serrated blades), with each combination of variables repeated thrice. 3D digital microscopy was utilized to model and measure each incision. The two-way ANOVA found significant differences in depth and length between knife types and levels of force across all sample sets (p < 0.05), with greater perpendicular forces and serrated blades creating longer and deeper cuts. These findings demonstrate that there is a complex relationship between force, type of knife blade, and the related dimensions of incisions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".