MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187507803

Air Bag Induced Fatalities in Canada

2003· article· en· W2187507803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan German, Dainius Dalmotas, Suzanne Tylko, Jean-Louis Comeau, Brian C. Monk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashAeronauticsPoison controlEngineeringCollisionForensic engineeringTransport engineeringBusinessComputer securityEnvironmental healthComputer scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past decade has seen the widespread introduction of air bags in the Canadian fleet; however, the collision performance of these systems, as supplements to seat belts, has been mixed. In severe crashes, air bags have provided good head protection, whereas in low severity collisions, the energy of the deploying air bag has often been the dominant factor in injury production. This has been especially notable in a number of minor crashes where vehicle occupants have been fatally injured, with the injury mechanism being attributed to adverse interaction with a deploying air bag. Based on the experience from in-depth investigations of real-world collisions, and an intensive crash test programme, a variety of countermeasures have been developed. While these have had a very positive effect, concerns remain over the level of public knowledge of air bag safety and, in particular, the precautions being taken by individuals who are at greatest risk. The current paper reviews a series of low severity crashes involving air bag induced fatalities that have been researched in detail. The resulting implications for the design and testing of future safety systems, their regulation, and the dissemination of relevant information to vehicle users are discussed.

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)0.003
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207