MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151618465 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2010.533721

Head Restraint Backset During Routine Automobile Driving: Drivers Usually Exceed the Recommended Guidelines

2011· article· en· W2151618465 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jarrod A. J. Shugg, Kyle A. Vernest, James P. Dickey

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlHead (geology)Driving simulatorPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSimulationComputer scienceMedical emergencyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although several previous studies have evaluated horizontal head restraint backset distances, few studies have evaluated them during driving. The purpose of this study was to measure this backset during routine automobile driving and to specifically evaluate the backset during individual driving tasks such as turning, stopping, starting, and lane changes. METHODS: Fourteen subjects drove around a specified route through the city of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, that included residential, thruway, and highway driving; additional minor driving tasks, such as lane changes, were evaluated. The distance of head restraint to posterior aspect of the head was measured continuously throughout the drive using an ultrasonic measurement system. The timing of specific tasks was documented using a video camera. RESULTS: The average head-to-restraint distance throughout the driving route was 78.1 mm (standard deviation [SD] 24.8 mm); this distance did not vary significantly between the global measures during various driving areas (residential, thruway, and highway). We observed that the head restraint backsets during right turns (93.6 mm; SD 34.8 mm) were significantly larger compared to the other driving tasks (p < .001). The 7 males and 7 females showed similar backset distances: 84.52 mm (SD 12.08) and 71.68 mm (SD 5.53), respectively (p = .0785). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that most subjects maintain a relatively consistent head-to-restraint distance throughout their driving route; 2 subjects adopted very large head restraint backset distances throughout their drive and 2 others adopted very small head restraint backset distances-this appears to reflect driver posture. Twelve of 14 subjects had average backset distances that exceed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard guidelines, indicating that most drivers may be at risk for whiplash-like disorders if exposed to a rear impact while driving. Of the monitored driving tasks, turning, especially right turns, caused drivers to increase their head-to-restraint backset distance.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207