MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

RETROSPECTIVE STUDY ON RAILWAY-RELATED DEATHS IN SOUTH INDIA.

2024· article· en· W4393149740 on OpenAlexaff
Shobhana SS, Raviraj KG, Satish KV

Bibliographic record

VenueAin Shams Journal of Forensic Medicine and Clinical Toxicology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Peter's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyHistoryForensic engineeringMedicineGeographyEngineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Railways form an important mode of transportation worldwide. People in India use the railway as an important means of transport as it is economical and easily available both for local service and for distant modes of transportation. Along with the advantages that railways are providing as a mode of transport, railway deaths are one of the important fatal outcomes in this part of the world. Aim of the work: To study railway-related deaths concerning age, sex, pattern of injuries, and causes of death. Methods: In the current study done in Bangalore, India, the autopsy and police records were scrutinized to collect information to obtain an overview of deaths occurring due to railway injuries and deaths occurring in trains. The study analyses several demographic factorial details and common regions of the body that are involved in railway-related deaths. Results: Apart from the common injuries encountered in railway-related deaths causing death, this study also gives information about type V of railway-related deaths (Unusual incidents). Conclusion: The railway-related deaths encountered include both natural and unnatural causes. Recommendation: Strict rules and regulations should be initiated along with safety measures from lawmakers to avoid accidents as well as suicides due to railway deaths, as the injuries sustained will be fatal in most cases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAin Shams Journal of Forensic Medicine and Clinical Toxicology→Same topicOccupational Health and Safety Research→French-language works237,207→