MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390819164 · doi:10.1097/paf.0000000000000911

The National Association of Medical Examiners Position Paper on the Investigation and Certification of Pediatric Deaths From Environmental Neglect

2024· article· en· W4390819164 on OpenAlexaff
James R. Gill, Erik Christensen, Emily H. Dennison, Susan F. Ely, Thomas Gilson, Kelly A. Keyes, Kelly Lear, Jonathan Lucas, Tara J. Mahar, Reade A. Quinton

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronerCertificationNeglectMedicineMedical examinerPostponementMedical emergencyConsistency (knowledge bases)Environmental healthHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatryPolitical scienceLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Pediatric deaths that occur because of environmental neglect often involve 4 common scenarios: (1) hyperthermia due to environmental exposure, (2) ingestion of an accessible drug or poison, (3) unwitnessed/unsupervised drownings, and (4) unsafe sleep practices. Given the same fact pattern, the manner of death will vary from accident to homicide to undetermined based on local custom and/or the certifier's training and experience. Medical examiner/coroner death certifications are administrative public health determinations made for vital statistical purposes. Because the manner of death is an opinion, it is understandable that manner determinations may vary among practitioners. No prosecutor, judge, or jury is bound by the opinions expressed on the death certificate. This position paper does not dictate how these deaths should be certified. Rather, it describes the challenges of the investigations and manner determinations in these deaths. It provides specific criteria that may improve consistency of certification. Because pediatric deaths often are of public interest, this paper provides the medical examiner/coroner with a professional overview of such manner determination issues to assist various stakeholders in understanding these challenges and variations.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0120.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207