Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental identification is a pillar of disaster victim identification (DVI). Dental identification is accurate, efficient, inexpensive, and accepted in courts of law. The (known) antemortem (AM) dental charts and radiographic images acquired from the dentist of the missing person are evaluated, processed, and compared to post mortem (PM) findings present in the dentition or fragments of the dentition of the deceased individual. These comparisons evaluate and assess individuating restorative dental work, dental anatomical areas of concordance, spatial relationships of teeth one to another, and occasionally calculate the degree of "uniqueness" of either or both of the AM and PM dentition compared to known population databases. In a multiple fatality incident, odontologists may utilize age stratification to assist other means of identification. Computer comparison algorithms using recorded data can indicate possible matches between AM and PM data sets. Following clinical assessment, collection of post mortem tooth specimens for DNA profiling generation may be undertaken. This paper will highlight modern and efficient use of these tools. The framework for how dental identification in these incidents is currently managed is presented. The authors propose a change to this approach that moves away from interpretive subjective assessment toward comparisons based largely on objective data. The aim of this paper is to highlight the benefits of minimizing subjective decisions and maximizing objective data in the dental DVI process while simultaneously reducing risk to clinical personnel and minimizing costs by reducing the number of clinicians required onsite.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| 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".