MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411092420 · doi:10.1097/paf.0000000000001052

When One’s Not Enough

2025· article· en· W4411092420 on OpenAlexaff
Søren Jensen, Milad Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTorsoGunshot woundGUNSHOT INJURYMuzzlePoison controlPopulationInjury preventionSurgeryDemographyEmergency medicineAnatomyArchaeologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-inflicted gunshot wounds are a common modality of suicide. Cases with multiple gunshot wounds are rare. Problems with determining manner may arise when there is a lack of understanding of how and why they occur. Demographic data has seldom been explored in these cases. Gunshot wound suicides from the years 2015 to 2023 were reviewed at the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner's Office. Nineteen cases with multiple gunshot wounds were found. The multi-GSW cases, compared to the single-GSW cases, had a significantly increased proportion of revolvers (57.9% vs. 29.8%, P =0.008), lower muzzle energy handguns (86.7% vs. 39.6%, P <0.001), and shots to the torso (70.6% vs. 9.0%, P <0.001). Multi-GSW case decedents were significantly older than the single-GSW suicide average (16.2 y, P <0.001). There were also significant age differences between decedents who used the following: (Revolvers vs. semi-automatic pistols, 16.2 y, P <0.001; muzzle energy <400 vs. >400 J, 15.8 y, P <0.001; and shots to the torso vs. head, 8.4 y, P =0.002). In our population, older age was associated with factors that might necessitate multiple gunshot wounds in a 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.008

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207