MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386627379 · doi:10.5040/9798400672156

An Introduction to the Work of a Medical Examiner

2010· book· en· W4386627379 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John J. Miletich, Tia Laura Lindstrom

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicForensic and Genetic Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical examinerAccidentalRigor mortisNatural (archaeology)MedicineCriminologyPsychologyHistoryMedical emergencyPoison controlSuicide prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical examiners play an increasingly important role in society as unexpected and violent deaths increase, not only due to crime, but also due to new toxins in the environment, emerging diseases crossing from animals to humans, bizarre suicides, sadistic sexual practices, and other non-natural causes. John Miletich and Tia Lindstrom take us into the world of these medical detectives. Biological clues from bite marks and skin abnormalities to blood chemical levels and brain oxygenation are just some factors exposed in their quest for truth and justice. We learn the basics of death determination from rigor and livor mortis to signs of death by design, drug use, disease, suicide, and more. We also come to understand the tools of this work, from the Stryker's Saw to the grocer's scale, and tests that reveal factors from DNA evidence to toxins from insect bites. Each case begins with a biological mystery and ends with a conclusion that can provide loved ones with relief, or shock. Miletich, who trained at the Alberta Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, teams with Lindstrom to introduce readers to the medical examiner's role, including autopsy techniques and analysis. Twists and turns emerge as what was initially thought to be a murder proves to be suicide; what was suspected to be a natural death proves to be murder or environmental poisoning; or what was thought to be an accidental death proves to be something more sinister. This work includes appendices with guides to Medical Examiner organizations, seminars, and conventions.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.054

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForensic and Genetic ResearchFrench-language works237,207