MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044041272 · doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0339

A study of injury parameters for rearward and forward facing 3-year-old child dummy using numerical simulation

2005· article· en· W2044041272 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Crashworthiness · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTransport CanadaFord Motor Company
KeywordsCrashSAFERSittingVulnerability (computing)Injury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicineEngineeringForensic engineeringMedical emergencyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract More children die of road traffic injuries than of any other cause. Nonuse and misuse of child restraints is common and leads to preventable severe injuries or deaths. Furthermore, many children graduate to inappropriate restraint systems or switch from rearward to forward facing prematurely. Facing rearward is intrinsically safer, provided the head is supported, and the reasons for seating a child in the opposite position relate to convenience, not safety. With heavy heads and weak necks, children are vulnerable to catastrophic traction injuries to the cervical cord, and children older than 1 year retain this vulnerability. Most studies have estimated that rearward facing restraints reduce the risk of serious injury by about 80–90%. A recent analysis of the Swedish Volvo crash database reported that the injury reducing effect of rearward facing child restraints might be as high as 96%. However, the age at which children should start sitting in a forward-facing position is controversial. The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently advised that children should be seated facing the rear of the vehicle for as long as possible and at least until 1 year of age. Both Transport Canada and the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) currently suggest having children face forward from about 1 year of age or once they reach 10 kg (22 lb), while Australian children are often turned around to forward facing at 5 to 6 months of age. In this paper a multi-body dynamic simulation MADYMO model is developed for rearward and forward facing 3-year-old child dummy. The reasonable correlation between the developed forward facing numerical simulation results and the experimental results indicates that the model is robust. Simulation for both facing configurations is conducted using an experimental moderate frontal crash pulse. The study indicates that the upper neck forces, and the neck injury criteria can be greatly reduced by keeping the child in the rearward facing position. For children safety, parents and caregivers should seriously consider keeping children rearward facing for as long as possible. Moreover, manufacturers should be encouraged to develop car safety seats that accommodate children rear facing up to 4 years of age.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.327 · 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