MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125087051 · doi:10.1080/10255842.2010.504922

Finite element modelling of equestrian helmet impacts exposes the need to address rotational kinematics in future helmet designs

2010· article· en· W2125087051 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel A. Forero Rueda, Liang Cui, Michael D. Gilchrist

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionKinematicsAngular accelerationLinear accelerationHybrid IIIAccelerationHead (geology)Finite element methodPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineeringSimulationStructural engineeringInjury preventionAeronauticsMedicinePhysicsGeologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jockey head injuries, especially concussions, are common in horse racing. Current helmets do help to reduce the severity and incidences of head injury, but the high concussion incidence rates suggest that there may be scope to improve the performance of equestrian helmets. Finite element simulations in ABAQUS/Explicit were used to model a realistic helmet model during standard helmeted rigid headform impacts and helmeted head model University College Dublin Brain Trauma Model (UCDBTM) impacts. Current helmet standards for impact determine helmet performance based solely on linear acceleration. Brain injury-related values (stress and strain) from the UCDBTM showed that a performance improvement based on linear acceleration does not imply the same improvement in head injury-related brain tissue loads. It is recommended that angular kinematics be considered in future equestrian helmet standards, as angular acceleration was seen to correlate with stress and strain in the brain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations94
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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