MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133450624 · doi:10.3357/asem.2769.2010

My Car Is Sinking: Automobile Submersion, Lessons in Vehicle Escape

2010· article· en· W2133450624 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon G. Giesbrecht, Gerren K. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueAviation Space and Environmental Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmersion (mathematics)DoorsOpen waterEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringEngineeringAeronauticsStructural engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In North America approximately 400 individuals per year die in submersed vehicles, accounting for 5-11% of all drownings. About half of people surveyed would let the vehicle fill with water before attempting exit. METHODS: We used a crane and two passenger vehicles of the same make, model, and year-one with passenger compartment intact (I) and one with holes (H) in the floor (area approximately 2200 cm2)--to conduct occupied and unoccupied submersions. RESULTS: Three phases of submersion were identified: 1) FLOATING, vehicles floated for 15 s (H) to 63 s (I) before the water reached the bottom of the side windows; 2) SINKING, the subsequent period until the vehicle is completely under water, but before it fills completely; and 3) SUBMERGED, the vehicle was full of water and several feet below the surface. Total time to submersion was 150 s for I but only 37 s for H. Opening the door to exit Vehicle I decreased submersion time from 150 to 30 s. Even the most difficult exit strategy attempted (three men and a child manikin through one window) was quickly performed from Vehicle I (only 51 s). During one exit attempt, initiated during the sinking phase, it was impossible to open the doors or windows until the vehicle was completely full of water. CONCLUSIONS: A vehicle is most easily exited during the initial Floating Phase. We suggest the following escape procedure: SEATBELT(s) unfastened; WINDOWS open; CHILDREN released from restraints and brought close to an adult; and OUT, children should exit first.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAviation Space and Environmental MedicineSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207