Many operational cases are documented more than once, at different workflow stages and for different purposes, yet model evaluations normally select one of these records before model comparison begins...
The study investigates whether a model trained on construction‑sector occupational accident narratives can accurately classify accident‑process roles in other sectors and reporting environments. Using 42,244 factual units from 6,040 construction narratives, the authors compared TF‑IDF, frozen pretrained representations, and task‑adapted pretrained models, achieving up to 85.7% balanced accuracy without retraining. The models performed consistently across metallurgy, chemistry‑plastics, and an independent company corpus, though performance varied more on the latter due to differing reporting practices.
arXiv:2607. 29064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Police crash narratives contain information that may supplement structured crash databases, but manual review is labor-intensive and it remains unclear how well large language models (LLMs) reproduce official crash coding.
Medical device recalls are a critical regulatory mechanism for protecting patient safety. The growing volume of FDA recall records presents challenges in post-report recall triage, severity assessment, and root-cause interpretation.
arXiv:2606. 27174v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Medical device recalls are a critical regulatory mechanism for protecting patient safety.
The paper presents a decision‑aware framework for predicting dementia‑related crash severity that emphasizes auditability and selective deferral. Using 4,781 Texas crash records, the authors evaluate several models—including structured, narrative, fusion, calibrated fusion, BERT‑family, and local large‑language‑model baselines—under a stratified 70/15/15 split. The leakage‑controlled Gemma model achieves the highest macro‑F1 of 0.545, while a calibrated fusion model reaches 0.522 macro‑F1 with an expected calibration error of 0.033; selective deferral further improves performance, raising macro‑F1 to 0.573 at 70% coverage and reducing severity cost to 0.577.
arXiv:2609.23853v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Disaster-risk-reduction archives describe hazard events in prose that databases such as EM-DAT (Delforge et al., 2025) cannot ingest directly. We prese...
arXiv:2606. 13249v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Maritime accident adjudication reports contain critical tribunal findings for root cause analysis (RCA), yet retrieving relevant precedents and drafting consistent reports from decades of records remains labor-intensive.
The paper investigates how memory systems can answer a current query correctly yet fail to retain distinctions needed for later updates. Using a paired‑history audit, the authors evaluate 24 history pairs across six synthetic mechanisms and two model backends, achieving perfect reveal accuracy on DeepSeek and high accuracy on GLM. Record‑level audits reveal specific failures in structured reveal memories and frontier late‑reference adequacy, and the authors test a label‑equivariant repair that only partially restores correctness.
Grounded Adjudication of Variations across Extracted TimeLines (GAVEL) is a new LLM‑based protocol that compares two clinical timelines against their source case report, identifying discrepancy types, issuing verdicts, and citing relevant report passages for each difference. In a study of 126 reports, GAVEL evaluated 2,738 findings from GPT‑5.6sol and DeepSeek V3.2, ranked six LLM extractors and two human annotators, and guided a merging process that improved timeline accuracy—reducing discrepancies from 7.63 to 0.85 per report and yielding a 77.0% preference rate for merged timelines. The approach demonstrates that report‑based comparison can refine extracted timelines without assuming any single timeline as ground truth.
The study compared human and large language model (LLM) workflows for title‑and‑abstract screening in a complex scoping review. Human reviewers and two GPT‑5.4 file‑batch runs retained 42.2‑45.0% of records with 82.3‑82.9% recall, while Gemini 3.1 achieved the highest recall (83.9%) but retained 56.7% of records. Identical GPT‑5.4 runs showed 91.7% agreement yet differed on 94 records, including 29 verified eligible ones.
The study examines how differences in radiologists’ reporting styles—such as terminology, shorthand, formatting, and detail—affect the evaluation of AI-generated chest X‑ray reports. By quantifying the sensitivity of common metrics to these variations, the authors show that changes in reference reports can shift model rankings. They introduce a taxonomy of reporting variations and a rewriting method, ReRef, that preserves clinical meaning while altering style, and release a validated dataset of paired reference reports to aid future research.