MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171071031 · doi:10.1177/1754337112436629

Analysis of the influence of independent variables used for reconstruction of a traumatic brain injury incident

2012· article· en· W2171071031 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Post, T. Blaine Hoshizaki, Michael D. Gilchrist, Susan Brien

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
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryAccelerationMetric (unit)Deformation (meteorology)Brain traumaStrain (injury)Variance (accounting)MathematicsVariablesStatisticsMechanicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMaterials sciencePhysicsEngineeringInternal medicineComposite materialClassical mechanicsOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traumatic brain injuries contribute to a high degree of morbidity and mortality in society. To study traumatic brain injuries researchers reconstruct the event using both physical and FE models. The purpose of these reconstructions is to correlate the brain deformation metric to the type of injury as a measure for prediction. These reconstructions are guided by a series of independent variables which all have influence upon the outcome variables. This research uses a combination of physical and FE modelling to quantify how independent variables such as velocity and impact vector (angle) contribute to the resulting variance in brain deformation metrics. The results indicated that using a Hybrid III neck controls the rotational acceleration response from an impact. Also, it was found that strain rate and product of strain and strain rate were more sensitive to changes in impact angle. Linear acceleration decreased with increasing impact angle, while brain deformations did not follow this trend, which suggests that peak linear acceleration may not be the only factor in the production of larger brain deformations.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations24
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