MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412561932 · doi:10.1504/ijfe.2025.147536

Multi-disciplinary approach to a use-of-force investigation: case study

2025· article· en· W4412561932 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsMAB-Mackay Rehabilitation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investigating a violent encounter can be a complicated endeavour as evidence is often incomplete or misleading. However, with the right combination of expertise, it is frequently possible to establish a verifiable fact pattern. The work presented illustrates this point by reviewing the investigation of a violent police-citizen encounter resulting in a loss of life. The ensuing discussion uses video analysis of body-worn camera footage as the overview for the events under review before quantifying them using both testing and literature. Individually, video forensics, human factors psychology and biomechanics allowed a greater understanding of the timing involved in the discharge of the firearm, relative movement patterns during the altercation and a plausible sequence of shots fired. Using these multi-disciplined approaches together however, provided validation of the same.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.322 · 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