MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W59165688 · doi:10.1520/jfs2003094

The Gander Disaster: Dental Identification in a Military Tragedy

2003· article· en· W59165688 on OpenAlexaffabout
RB Brannon, WM Morlang, Smith Bc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)CharterForensic dentistryMedical emergencyTragedy (event)Forensic odontologyCrashForensic engineeringPoison controlMilitary personnelAviation accidentAviationEngineeringCriminologyMedicineHistoryDentistryPsychologyArchaeologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors record the contributions of dentistry to the identification of victims of one of the most significant disasters in aviation and U.S. military history--the December 1985 crash of a DC-8 charter airliner near Gander, Newfoundland (now known as Newfoundland and Labrador), Canada, which killed 248 Army personnel and 8 crewmembers. Most of the dental records of the military victims were destroyed in the crash, and, as a result, this loss hampered dental identification. Nevertheless, dental identification was the primary means of identification for many because a very high percentage of the bodies were severely burned and fragmented. Many phases of the U.S. identification efforts have been reported, but the dental-investigation aspects have been mentioned only in passing. Therefore, this article documents the dental team's organization, methodology, and a variety of remarkable problems that the team encountered.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207