MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998050651 · doi:10.1115/sbc2011-53489

Evaluation of the Biofidelity of the HIII and MIL-Lx Lower Leg Surrogates Under Axial Impact Loading

2011· article· en· W1998050651 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl E. Quenneville, Cynthia E. Dunning

Bibliographic record

VenueASME 2011 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercentileRange (aeronautics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationLower limbSimulationStructural engineeringEngineeringMedicineMathematicsSurgeryAerospace engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impact loading of the lower legs can occur during a range of events such as car crashes, parachute landings, or anti-vehicular (AV) landmine blasts. This rapid, high-force loading can lead to debilitating injuries and long-term impairment. For military applications, the current lower leg injury standard is a maximum axial force of 5.4 kN, measured using a standard 50th percentile male Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) [1,2]. For an ATD leg to be an appropriate tool for assessing injury risk, it must have an impact response similar to that of the natural human leg.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME 2011 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and BSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207