MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072192206 · doi:10.1177/1754337112449420

Analysis of loading curve characteristics on the production of brain deformation metrics

2012· article· en· W2072192206 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Post, Evan S. Walsh, T. Blaine Hoshizaki, Michael D. Gilchrist

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsImpactOntario Neurotrauma FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationDeformation (meteorology)Angular accelerationBrain traumaLinear discriminant analysisTraumatic brain injuryMechanicsMathematicsPhysicsMaterials scienceClassical mechanicsStatisticsPsychologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic and mild traumatic brain injuries are incurred as a result of the complex motions of the head after an impact. These motions can be quantified in terms of linear and rotational accelerations which cause the injurious levels of brain deformation. Currently, it is unclear what aspects of the linear and rotational acceleration loading curves influence injurious brain deformation. This research uses the University College Dublin Brain Trauma Model to analyse the loading curve shapes from a series of centric and non-centric impacts to a Hybrid III headform fitted with different hockey helmets. The results found that peak resultant linear acceleration did not always correlate with brain deformation measures. The results also indicated that, due to the complex nature of the interaction between loading curve characteristic and tissue parameters, there was no commonality in curve shape which produced large magnitudes of brain deformation. However, the discriminant function did show that angular acceleration loading curve characteristics would predict brain deformation more reliably than linear acceleration loading curves.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and TechnologySame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207