The Effect Of Breast Anthropometry On The Hybrid III 5th Female Chest Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two manufacturers, Denton ATD and FTSS, currently produce the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy. In response to concerns raised by industry that differences in the anthropometry of the molded breasts between the two manufacturers may influence chest responses, Transport Canada conducted a comparative testing program. Thorax biofidelity tests were conducted to compare force-deflection characteristics; full frontal rigid-barrier tests were conducted at 40, 48 and 56 km/h to compare chest responses, and out-of-position chest on module static airbag deployment tests were conducted to compare peak chest deflections of the Denton and FTSS dummy jackets and of a prototype jacket without breasts. Differences in force-deflection characteristics were observed during biofidelity pendulum impacts of the two dummies, with much of the differences attributed to the different chest jackets. Differences of up to 11 mm in the peak sternum deflection and of the order of 15 g for the 3-ms chest acceleration clips were noted in rigid-barrier vehicle tests. In the out-of-position airbag-deployment tests, differences in the magnitude of peak chest deflections were observed. The prototype chest jacket without breasts was found to improve repeatability in the belted crash tests and in out-of-position airbag testing. Though neither the Denton nor the FTSS chest jackets fully meet the original design intent of the Hybrid III 5th percentile dummy, the Denton dummy more closely met the drawing specifications and had less manufacturing variability. The results demonstrate the importance of detailed chest flesh assembly specifications, provide evidence that a fully molded jacket design would eliminate manufacturing variability and suggest that removal of the breasts may further improve test repeatability.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".