Interactions of rear facing child restraints with the vehicle interior during frontal crash tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transport Canada (TC) began in-vehicle crash testing of rear facing infant seats in 2007, as part of a large ongoing comprehensive research program aimed at evaluating crashworthiness protection for child occupants of motor vehicles. A recent study sponsored by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States (May 2010) found that, among children involved in motor vehicle crashes, infants had a greater frequency of head injuries than older children up to seven years of age. The sample included 131 child restraints evaluated in 85 motor vehicle crash tests. Of the 131 crash tests, 126 were rigid barrier tests of which: 108 were conducted at 48km/h; 11 were conducted at 56 km/h; and seven were conducted at 40 km/h. Five offset deformable barrier tests, conducted at 40 km/h, were included in the sample. The majority or 117 tests involved rear facing infant seats; the remaining 14 tests were carried out with convertible seats installed facing the rear. Elevated head accelerations above 80g were observed in 18% tests with a significant number occurring in the rear center seating position. Elevated head accelerations were found to result from four principal categories of impacts: direct head contact with the seat back in front of the dummy; contact between the child restraint and the forward seat back; dummy head contact with the child seat carry handle; and child seat with the center console located between the front seats. The seat and dummy kinematics and the head accelerations are described for each impact type. Implications for future child restraint regulations are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".