Study of Occupant-Seat Models for Vibration Comfort Analysis of Automotive Seats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">The comfort assessments of automotive seats are attempted through development of seat-occupant models in order to minimize the participation of human subjects in such studies. A nonlinear model of a polyurethane foam (PUF) cushion and its support mechanism is developed through measurement of static and dynamic properties as functions of the seated load, and excitation frequencies and amplitudes. Nonlinear analytical models of the seat-occupant system are developed by integrating three different occupant models of different complexities with the cushion model. The analytical response characteristics of these models are derived under sinusoidal and random excitations considered representative of the automotive vibration environment. The vibration transmission properties of the seat are measured in the laboratory under harmonic and random excitations using 6 human subjects. The response characteristics of the models are compared with the mean measured response characteristics to examine the validity of occupant models for automotive applications. From the comparison, it is concluded that the reported occupant models yield poor estimates of vibration transmission performance of automotive seats.</div>
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".