MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1797069749 · doi:10.4271/2006-01-0455

A Comparison Of Hybrid III 5th Female Dummy Chest Responses In Controlled Sled Trials

2006· article· en· W1797069749 on OpenAlexafffund
Suzanne Tylko, Kazuo Higuchi, Schuyler St. Lawrence, Alain Bussières, Jean Marc Fiore

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The responses of a Hybrid III 5th percentile dummy manufactured by Denton ATD were compared to a Hybrid III 5th 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. 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. 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207