Side Impact CrashesåFactors Affecting Incidence and Severity: Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many traffic crashes are side impact collisions resulting in significant death and injury. A review was conducted of the evidence of driver, road, and vehicle characteristics affecting either the risk of occurrence or the severity of injury in such crashes for papers published from 1996 to early 2003. For drivers, evidence was found of increased crash risk or injury severity only for age and age-related medical conditions (e.g., dementia). Traffic roundabouts and other traffic control devices--stop signs, traffic lights, and so on--had mixed results; traffic controls were better than no controls, but their effectiveness varied with circumstance. Most vehicle characteristics have had little or no effect on crash occurrence. Antilock braking systems (ABS) in the striking vehicle had been anticipated to reduce the risk of crashes, but so far have demonstrated little effect. The primary emphasis in vehicle design has been on protective devices to reduce the severity of injury. Disparity in the size of the two vehicles, especially when the struck vehicle is smaller and lighter, is almost a consistent risk factor for occupant injury. The occupants of light trucks, however, when struck by passengers cars on the opposite side, were at higher risk of injury. Wearing seat belts had a consistently protective effect; airbags did not, but there were few studies, and no field studies, of lateral airbags found. Of all the characteristics examined, vehicle design, including occupant restraints, is the most easily modified in the short term, although road design, traffic control, and the monitoring of older drivers may also prove effective in reducing side impact crashes in the longer term.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".