The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The impact of scavenging: perspective from casework in forensic anthropology
Open accessAbstract
Forensic anthropology casework frequently encounters evidence of animal scavenging associated with fragmentation and loss of skeletal material. Published research demonstrates that patterns of destruction in bone can suggest the size and type of animal involved. This study analyzes 107 cases reported on by the first author at the Smithsonian Institution to investigate patterns of scavenging in forensic anthropology casework. This investigation reveals that the extent of scavenger impact varies across the body, but primarily is concentrated in the central body area. Although extensive animal scavenging can limit analysis, some evidence of foul play can be preserved.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“scavenging rates of 4.8 -60% were stated in forensic anthropological casework surveys from South Africa, the USA, the UK, and Switzerland [2 -6].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Vertebrate scavengers frequently affect forensic casework by feeding on human remains or by scattering body parts and bones.”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [2]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- Ubelaker DH, 1997, Forensic taphonomy, 77
- Haglund WD, 2002, Advances in forensic taphonomy
- Ubelaker DH, 2000, Forensic Sci Commun, 2, 10
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556-4029.13786 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00134.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556-4029.13378 · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12684 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS12718J · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1520/JFS13338J · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00467.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.08.020 · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12992 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.06.021 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01020.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.030 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12025 · DOI · Paper page
- Anderson BE, 2003, Hard evidence: case studies in forensic anthropology, 189
- 10.1111/1556-4029.13470 · DOI
- Berryman H, 2002, Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspectives, 487
- Carson EA, 2000, J Forensic Sci, 45, 515, 10.1520/JFS45305J · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02017.x · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.13514 · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.14009 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.01.006 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00450618.2011.650206 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.06.015 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.06.022 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s00414-019-02154-6 · DOI
- 10.1080/00085030.2017.1260894 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indra, L., Lösch, S., Errickson, D., & Finaughty, D. (2023) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Ubelaker, D. H., & DeGaglia, C. M.
- Affiliations
- Smithsonian Institution (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ubelaker, Douglas H.
- Venue
- Forensic Sciences Research
- Published
- 2020-01-02
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 32-37
- ISSN
- 2096-1790 (ISSN-L)
- 2471-1411
- PMC
- PMC7241500
- OpenAlex
- W3005313361
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 23.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ (vor)
- Locations
- Forensic Sciences Research (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
- Keywords
- bone fragmentation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
