MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598263072 · doi:10.4271/2008-01-0191

Active Bolster for Side Impact Protection

2008· article· en· W1598263072 on OpenAlexaff
Bijoy K. Saraf, Michael N. Trutzel, Sukhbir Bilkhu, Kalu Uduma, Raj S. Roychoudhury

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBolsterComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the simulation based methodology for designing and developing a deployable vehicle door interior trim, an Active Side Bolster (ASB), and its interaction (in FEA simulation) with an ATD in side impact crash test modes like FMVSS2141 Oblique Pole, IIHS2 and LINCAP. The FEA models, especially with the complexity of the full vehicle structure, the ATDs3 and the airbags, require extensive correlation using vehicle tests. A methodology is outlined here to ensure that the model results could be used to generate FEA ATD assessments without a significant numerical contamination of the results. These correlated FEA models for side impact vehicle tests and ATDs were used to simulate various side impact crash test conditions; such as IIHS barrier, the FMVSS-214 Oblique Pole and LINCAP. The ATD responses from the baseline vehicle FEA models and those modified with the addition of an ASB in the door shows improvement in assessment values due to the introduction of the ASB. The ASB design parameters, such as inflator mass flow rate, vent size, etc. has been examined with respect to changes in the ATD assessment values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.017

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207