Validation of a full body finite element model (THUMS) for running-type impacts to the lower extremity
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether modifying an existing, highly biofidelic full body finite element model [total human model for safety (THUMS)] would produce valid amplitude and temporal shock wave characteristics as it travels proximally through the lower extremity. Modifying an existing model may be more feasible than developing a new model, in terms of cost, labour and expertise. The THUMS shoe was modified to more closely simulate the material properties of a heel pad. Relative errors in force and acceleration data from experimental human pendulum impacts and simulated THUMS impacts were 22% and 54%, respectively, across the time history studied. The THUMS peak acceleration was attenuated by 57.5% and took 19.7 ms to travel proximally along the lower extremity. Although refinements may be necessary to improve force and acceleration timing, the modified THUMS represented, to a certain extent, shock wave propagation and attenuation demonstrated by living humans under controlled impact conditions.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it