MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909448503

Improved side impact protection: the development of injury assessment functions

2001· article· en· W1909448503 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Gibson, Evangelos Benetatos, Stuart Newstead, Brian Fildes

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashPoison controlSide impactRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Crash testEngineeringComputer scienceMedicineComputer securityMedical emergency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the ISIP Project has been to develop a methodology to allow vehicle designers to optimize safety systems of vehicles in side impacts. This optimization was based on the minimization of the cost of injury or Harm. To form the link between the safety system protective capability in a crash and the cost of injury to the occupant required the development of a series of lateral impact Injury Assessment Functions (IAFs). These IAFs had to be able to predict the risk of injury, in AIS (abbreviated injury scale), for each of the major body regions of the occupant. The injury predictions were used to derive Harm for the crash and were based on the responses of a human surrogate, the BioSID. This paper describes the development of these lateral injury IAFs from the analysis of cadaver test data.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV)Same topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207