MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061491443 · doi:10.4271/2015-01-1437

Field-based Assessments of Various AIS2+ Head Risk Curves for Frontal Impact

2015· article· en· W2061491443 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tony R. Laituri, Raed E. El-Jawahri, Scott Henry, Kaye Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsHead (geology)Field (mathematics)Computer scienceGeologyMathematicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, various risk curves for moderate-to-fatal head injury (AIS2+) were theoretically assessed by comparing model-based injury rates with field-based injury rates. This was accomplished by applying the risk curves in corresponding field models. The resulting injury rates were considered from two perspectives: aggregate (0-56 kph events) and point-estimate (higher-speed, barrier-like events). Four risk curves were studied: a HIC15-based curve from Mertz et al. (1997), a BRIC-based curve from Takhounts et al. (2011), a BrIC-based curve from Takhounts et al. (2013) and a Concussion-Correlate-based curve from Rowson et al. (2013). The field modeling pertained to adult drivers in 11-1 o'clock, towaway, full-engagement frontal crashes in the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS, calendar years = 1993-2012), and the model-year range of the passenger vehicles was 1985-2010. The attendant inhomogeneity of the restraint systems was approximated by four representative systems. Prior to the field modeling, base models were developed and validated to acceptable levels. Specifically, there were seven assessments of head-impact tests (avg PctDiff = 5.2%) and nine assessments of representative restraint-system models relative to fleet-wide tests (avg PctDiff = 5.0% relative to fleet medians). Subsequently, 36 comparisons were conducted via the field modeling relative to NASS (i.e., four curves and nine aggregate/point assessments). On average, the Concussion-Correlate-based curve demonstrated the best fidelity from the aggregate perspective (+7% difference), with the following rank ordering: Concussion Correlate, HIC15, BRIC, and BrIC. As for the point-estimate perspective, the HIC15 curve demonstrated the best fidelity (−26% difference), rank ordered as HIC15, Concussion Correlate, BRIC, and BrIC. The data underlying these results indicated that more study is needed to improve the fidelity of curve-based risk estimation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207