A Comparison Of Hybrid III 5th Female Dummy Chest Responses In Controlled Sled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">The responses of a Hybrid III 5<sup>th</sup> percentile dummy manufactured by Denton ATD were compared to a Hybrid III 5<sup>th</sup> percentile dummy manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS). The dummies were seated on a HYGE sled set in a representative small production sedan configuration, simulating a 60 km/h offset deformable barrier (25 g pulse) and a 22 km/h crash (11 g pulse). Three shoulder retractor anchorage positions were used to place the shoulder belt at different locations on the dummy shoulder for each of the driver (left shoulder) and passenger (right shoulder) seating positions.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">Chest deflections measured from the rotary potentiometer are compared to deflections calculated from the accelerometers and are reported as a function of belt load and belt position. Repeatability is evaluated at low and high deflection levels.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">There was no difference observed between the peak chest responses of the two dummies despite the fact that the anthropometry of the breasts differed rather significantly. Chest deflection was found to be strongly dependent on belt position. The implications of the results for in-vehicle dummy positioning are discussed and recommendations for further study presented.</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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".