MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391130941 · doi:10.1097/paf.0000000000000909

Medicolegal Implications of Deaths due to Agricultural Accidents

2024· review· en· W4391130941 on OpenAlexaff
Ugo Da Broi, Francesco Simonit, Lorenzo Desinan, Rexson Tse, Jack Garland, Benjamin Ondruschka, Danny Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccidentalAgricultureVariety (cybernetics)HomicideOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyPoison controlInjury preventionBusinessMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)Forensic engineeringEngineeringGeographyComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Agriculture encompasses a variety of activities that carry with them a variety of different risks. The unsafe use of vehicles, machinery, and tools as well as animal husbandry, working at heights, and exposure to chemical, biological, and weather events may result in the deaths of agricultural workers. Inexperienced operators and/or their inappropriate conduct may lead to avoidable fatalities. Forensic pathologists operating with the support of agricultural engineers or other professionals must evaluate the death scene, the case background and circumstances, the autopsy findings, and the toxicological data to establish the factors and dynamics responsible for such accidents and deaths.The aim of this review is to focus on the diagnostic approach required, by means of an interdisciplinary approach, to identify the cause of some typical agricultural fatalities, to confirm that death was accidental, and to help exclude the possibility of homicide or suicide.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207