MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047969919 · doi:10.1080/13588265.2011.616079

Side impact occupant response with varying positions

2011· article· en· W2047969919 on OpenAlexafffund
Brock Watson, Duane S. Cronin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Crashworthiness · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSide impactPoison controlCrashworthinessForensic engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringMedical emergencyMedicineFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injuries in side impact collisions, particularly to the thorax, are one of the leading causes of fatalities and severe injury in automotive collisions. Current side impact crash testing standards stipulate an initial position of the anthropometric test device (ATD) before impact; however, there is limited data regarding the relationship between initial ATD position, response and predicted injury. In this study, a finite element model of a full-scale side impact test was developed integrating full-vehicle, barrier and ATD models. The individual models were verified and validated, followed by validation of the fully integrated model using vehicle-specific crash tests and a broader study of late model sedan crash tests. The model predicted that the velocity profile of the impacted door was dominated by occupant interaction during contact and by the vehicle structure before and after contact with the occupant. Generally, the predicted level of injury increased when the ATD model was positioned closer to the intruding door or moved further rearwards due to interaction with the B pillar. Additionally, the door interior geometry was found to have a significant effect on the results due to the timing and location of interaction with the thorax. The thorax deflection was found to be much less sensitive to changes in position than the viscous criterion, which incorporated a velocity term in addition to a deflection. This study demonstrates the importance of occupant position on response and the possibility to enhance safety through interior door design and standoff distance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CrashworthinessSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207