A. Palmiotto , A.P. Winburn , C. Pink , C.A. Brown , C.B. LeGarde
{"title":"法医人类学家与骨骼完整性估计:培训和经验的影响","authors":"A. Palmiotto , A.P. Winburn , C. Pink , C.A. Brown , C.B. LeGarde","doi":"10.1016/j.scijus.2023.12.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Forensic anthropologists engage with numerous and diverse stakeholders in their casework. Regarding the recovery of human remains, these stakeholders may be interested in quantifying or qualifying the amount of remains recovered. How forensic anthropologists respond to such questions, whether verbally or in written reporting, has the potential to impact the trajectory of a case. However, communications about skeletal completeness are rarely discussed within the field. Current data-collection procedures recommend the use of inventories. This approach may be less feasible for complicated assemblages involving commingling or high degrees of fragmentation. Numerous methods exist to quantify the amount of skeletal remains present in complex or larger assemblages, but it remains unclear to what extent forensic anthropologists utilize these methods and whether factors like degree of expertise influence analysts’ ability to report skeletal completeness consistently and precisely.</p><p>A study was designed to examine differences between public and professional perceptions of skeletal completeness, presenting images of incomplete bones and skeletal remains. Survey participants were asked to assess the completeness of the remains in each image. Few patterns were observed regarding photographs<span> of skeletal assemblages, but distinct differences were observed among individual bones between respondents with different degrees of expertise. These responses reflect potentially unexamined assumptions underlying assessments of incomplete bones and skeletal assemblages. This highlights the necessity of standardizing how we report estimates of completeness within the forensic anthropology community and how we discuss these results with external stakeholders. Completeness estimates must be either removed from reports and bench notes or annotated and cited clearly, as is standard with other aspects of forensic anthropological analysis. Several methods are summarized, with recommendations for integrating them into casework.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":49565,"journal":{"name":"Science & Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forensic anthropologists and estimates of skeletal completeness: The impacts of training and experience\",\"authors\":\"A. Palmiotto , A.P. Winburn , C. Pink , C.A. Brown , C.B. LeGarde\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.scijus.2023.12.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Forensic anthropologists engage with numerous and diverse stakeholders in their casework. Regarding the recovery of human remains, these stakeholders may be interested in quantifying or qualifying the amount of remains recovered. How forensic anthropologists respond to such questions, whether verbally or in written reporting, has the potential to impact the trajectory of a case. However, communications about skeletal completeness are rarely discussed within the field. Current data-collection procedures recommend the use of inventories. This approach may be less feasible for complicated assemblages involving commingling or high degrees of fragmentation. Numerous methods exist to quantify the amount of skeletal remains present in complex or larger assemblages, but it remains unclear to what extent forensic anthropologists utilize these methods and whether factors like degree of expertise influence analysts’ ability to report skeletal completeness consistently and precisely.</p><p>A study was designed to examine differences between public and professional perceptions of skeletal completeness, presenting images of incomplete bones and skeletal remains. Survey participants were asked to assess the completeness of the remains in each image. Few patterns were observed regarding photographs<span> of skeletal assemblages, but distinct differences were observed among individual bones between respondents with different degrees of expertise. These responses reflect potentially unexamined assumptions underlying assessments of incomplete bones and skeletal assemblages. This highlights the necessity of standardizing how we report estimates of completeness within the forensic anthropology community and how we discuss these results with external stakeholders. Completeness estimates must be either removed from reports and bench notes or annotated and cited clearly, as is standard with other aspects of forensic anthropological analysis. Several methods are summarized, with recommendations for integrating them into casework.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science & Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science & Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030623001326\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Justice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030623001326","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Forensic anthropologists and estimates of skeletal completeness: The impacts of training and experience
Forensic anthropologists engage with numerous and diverse stakeholders in their casework. Regarding the recovery of human remains, these stakeholders may be interested in quantifying or qualifying the amount of remains recovered. How forensic anthropologists respond to such questions, whether verbally or in written reporting, has the potential to impact the trajectory of a case. However, communications about skeletal completeness are rarely discussed within the field. Current data-collection procedures recommend the use of inventories. This approach may be less feasible for complicated assemblages involving commingling or high degrees of fragmentation. Numerous methods exist to quantify the amount of skeletal remains present in complex or larger assemblages, but it remains unclear to what extent forensic anthropologists utilize these methods and whether factors like degree of expertise influence analysts’ ability to report skeletal completeness consistently and precisely.
A study was designed to examine differences between public and professional perceptions of skeletal completeness, presenting images of incomplete bones and skeletal remains. Survey participants were asked to assess the completeness of the remains in each image. Few patterns were observed regarding photographs of skeletal assemblages, but distinct differences were observed among individual bones between respondents with different degrees of expertise. These responses reflect potentially unexamined assumptions underlying assessments of incomplete bones and skeletal assemblages. This highlights the necessity of standardizing how we report estimates of completeness within the forensic anthropology community and how we discuss these results with external stakeholders. Completeness estimates must be either removed from reports and bench notes or annotated and cited clearly, as is standard with other aspects of forensic anthropological analysis. Several methods are summarized, with recommendations for integrating them into casework.
期刊介绍:
Science & Justice provides a forum to promote communication and publication of original articles, reviews and correspondence on subjects that spark debates within the Forensic Science Community and the criminal justice sector. The journal provides a medium whereby all aspects of applying science to legal proceedings can be debated and progressed. Science & Justice is published six times a year, and will be of interest primarily to practising forensic scientists and their colleagues in related fields. It is chiefly concerned with the publication of formal scientific papers, in keeping with its international learned status, but will not accept any article describing experimentation on animals which does not meet strict ethical standards.
Promote communication and informed debate within the Forensic Science Community and the criminal justice sector.
To promote the publication of learned and original research findings from all areas of the forensic sciences and by so doing to advance the profession.
To promote the publication of case based material by way of case reviews.
To promote the publication of conference proceedings which are of interest to the forensic science community.
To provide a medium whereby all aspects of applying science to legal proceedings can be debated and progressed.
To appeal to all those with an interest in the forensic sciences.