MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052207759 · doi:10.1080/10255842.2012.672563

Development of a finite element/multi-body model of a newborn infant for restraint analysis and design

2012· article· en· W2052207759 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Bondy, William Altenhof, Xilin Chen, Anne Snowdon, Brenda Vrkljan

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Windsor
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of Excellence
KeywordsTorsoFinite element methodBiomechanicsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationOrthodonticsStructural engineeringEngineeringAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A finite element/multi-body model of a newborn infant has been developed by researchers at the University of Windsor. The geometry of this model is derived from a Nita newborn hospital training mannequin. It consists of 17 parts: eight upper and lower limb segments, the torso, head, and a seven-segment neck with seven translational and eight rotational joints. Anthropometry is consistent with hospital growth charts, measurements requested from health professionals and data from the open literature. The biomechanical properties of the model (i.e. joint stiffnesses) are implementations of data identified in the open literature. The model has been validated with respect to studies of the biomechanics of shaken baby syndrome, infant falls and the Q0 anthropomorphic testing device. A significant conclusion of this study is that the kinetics of the Q0 neck is not biofidelic. This model is currently used in an analysis of airway patency for infants in modern automotive child restraints.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207