MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981867531

Forensic Odontology Radiography and Imaging in Disaster Victim Identification Positional statement of the members of the Disaster Victim Identification working group of the International Society of Forensic Radiology and Imaging

2016· article· en· W6981867531 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)RadiographyForensic odontologyForensic identificationForensic dentistryConventional radiography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of radiography by forensic odontologists for the purposes of disaster victim identification (DVI)\nwas established in 1949, when it was used to assist in the identification of the victims of the Great\nLakes liner “Noronic” disaster in Toronto, Canada. Of the 119 victims of the disaster, positive\nidentification matches were established for 24 of the most severely disfigured cases through the use\nof comparative odontology radiography (1-3). Today radiography is an established tool of forensic\nodontologists for DVI. The precise requirements for dental radiography for any given mass fatality\nincident will be determined by the working practices of the forensic odontologists engaged in the\ninvestigation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207