The suitability of using domestic pigs (<i>Sus</i> spp.) as human proxies in the geophysical detection of clandestine graves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in many forensic science fields commonly uses domestic pigs (Sus spp.) as proxies for human remains, due to their physiological and anatomical similarities, as well as being more readily available. Unfortunately, previous research, especially that which compares the decompositional process, has shown that pigs are not appropriate proxies for humans. To date, there has not been any published research that specifically addresses whether domestic pigs are adequate human proxies for the geophysical detection of clandestine graves. As such, the aim of this paper was to compare the geophysical responses of pig cadavers and human donor graves, in order to determine if pigs can indeed be used as adequate human proxies. To accomplish this, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) responses on single and multiple pig cadaver graves were compared to single and multiple human donor graves, all of which are in known locations within the same geological environment. The results showed that under field conditions, both GPR and ERT were successful at observing human and pig burials, with no obvious differences between the detected geophysical responses. The results also showed that there were no differences in the geophysical responses of those who were clothed and unclothed. The similarity of the responses may reflect that the geophysical techniques can detect graves despite what their contents are. The study implications suggest that experimental studies in other soil and climate conditions can be easily replicated, benefiting law enforcement with missing persons cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".