Concrete evidence: Analysis of aggregate and cement in a homicide investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unusual body deposition site described comprised three elements of concealment: i) a covert stream-based ravine some 60 m from the suspect’s home; ii) partial grave dug into the ravine bank and iii) final concealment using concrete slabs. Disaggregation and sieving of concrete samples from the site, suspect residence(s) and control samples was carried out. These allowed informative exclusion of all but one control sample and provided a range of possible comparisons that may reflect the sequence of concrete slab selection, transport and use in covering the victim. The textures/colours of disaggregated, dried sediment size fractions also proved useful in conveying principles of exclusion to the court and jury at a subsequent murder trial. This work flows from basic (visual) observation of dry, cut blocks, through regular laboratory procedures of thin section work to disaggregation and size separation of aggregate-cement fractions. Graphical presentation of each analysis provided effective communication of geological science during the trial at court, concluding with a verdict of guilty by aggravated murder.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".