Head and brain response to blast using sagittal and transverse finite element models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mild traumatic brain injury caused by blast exposure from Improvised Explosive Devices has become increasingly prevalent in modern conflicts. To investigate head kinematics and brain tissue response in blast scenarios, two solid hexahedral blast-head models were developed in the sagittal and transverse planes. The models were coupled to an Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian model of the surrounding air to model blast-head interaction, for three blast load cases (5 kg C4 at 3, 3.5 and 4 m). The models were validated using experimental kinematic data, where predicted accelerations were in good agreement with experimental tests, and intracranial pressure traces at four locations in the brain, where the models provided good predictions for frontal, temporal and parietal, but underpredicted pressures at the occipital location. Brain tissue response was investigated for the wide range of constitutive properties available. The models predicted relatively low peak principal brain tissue strains from 0.035 to 0.087; however, strain rates ranged from 225 to 571 s-1. Importantly, these models have allowed us to quantify expected strains and strain rates experienced in brain tissue, which can be used to guide future material characterization. These computationally efficient and predictive models can be used to evaluate protection and mitigation strategies in future analysis.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it