Statistical Considerations for Evaluating Biofidelity, Repeatability, and Reproducibility of ATDs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable testing of a mechanical system requires the procedures used for the evaluation to be repeatable and reproducible. However, it is never possible to exactly repeat or reproduce the tests that are used for evaluation. To overcome this limitation, a statistical evaluation procedure can generally be used. However, most of the statistical procedures use scalar values as input without the ability to handle vectors or time-histories. To overcome these limitations, two numerical/statistical methods for determining if the impact time-history response of a mechanical system is repeatable or reproducible are evaluated and elaborated upon. Such a system could be a vehicle, a biological human surrogate, an Anthropometric Test Device (ATD or dummy), etc. The responses could be sets of time-histories of accelerations, forces, moments, etc., of a component or of the system. The example system evaluated is the BioRID II rear impact dummy. The evaluation begins by transforming the sets of time-histories into sets of relative-shapes and magnitudes of those response time histories. The two statistical procedures use the t and T2-tests. One uses a statistical comparison between the average time history of a set (Representative Curve (RC)) and the individual time histories of that set or other sets. The other procedure uses a statistical comparison of sets of time histories.
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 | 0.247 | 0.511 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".