MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391610209 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.15476

Assessing <scp>iPhone LiDAR</scp> &amp; <scp>Recon‐3D</scp> for determining area of origin in bloodstain pattern analysis

2024· article· en· W4391610209 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Stevenson, Eugene Liscio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsAdvantage Forensics (Canada)Trent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerSoftwareComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)Laser scanningPoint cloudLidarComputer graphics (images)LaserArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)GeologyRemote sensingPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) has proven to be a useful tool in forensic and criminal investigations for quite some time. Traditionally, documenting a crime scene for a bloodletting event was completed using manual techniques, physical strings, and a tape measure. In more recent years, laser scanners and 3D software programs have become a preferred method to capture accurate data that improves the validity and reliability of BPA. The initial cost of laser scanning equipment is relatively high, rendering these systems inaccessible to some police and smaller agencies. Recon-3D is a newly developed iPhone application that utilizes the iPhone LiDAR sensor in combination with video data to create 3D point clouds of crime scenes. To assess the viability of Recon-3D for area of origin analysis, two tests were performed. One was a series of bloodstain impacts which were analyzed in FARO Zone 3D software, while the second was a series of 6 repeated Recon-3D scans of two 90-degree walls which was then compared to the FARO Focus S350 scanner using CloudCompare software. A total of eight impact patterns were made at three different distances from a wall. The area of origin was measured and compared to the known location of the blood source. The average total 3D error for the area of origin set at 25, 50, and 100 cm from two perpendicular walls was found to be 6.04, 15.16, and 36.59 cm, respectively. These results are similar to past studies where programs such as HemoSpat have been used. The results of the point cloud comparison show that on average, 95% of the points from Recon-3D fall below a threshold of 3.6 mm when compared to a FARO Focus S350 laser scanner. Thus, the results of this test suggest that Recon-3D is an accurate and affordable scanning application for bloodstain patterns at crime scenes and the data provide acceptable results for area of origin analysis in BPA programs which accept laser scanner data.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207