MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2214202248 · doi:10.4271/2004-01-0350

SID-IIS Response in Side Impact Testing

2004· article· en· W2214202248 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Suzanne Tylko, Dainius Dalmotas

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsSide impactAirbagCrashCrash testPercentileFar side of the MoonHybrid IIIAutomotive engineeringHead (geology)EngineeringSimulationAeronauticsComputer scienceStructural engineeringGeologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The responses of a 5th percentile female ATD in the driver and/or rear passenger positions of 56 crashes are described. The Transport Canada side impact programme consisted of LTV-to-car impacts, car-to-car impacts and IIHS barrier-to-car tests. The majority of the tests involved severe crash conditions for which the vehicles were not designed. The SID-IIs head, chest and abdominal responses were compared to determine the effects of the striking bullet geometry, the angle of impact, the impact point and the self-protective elements of the struck vehicle, including airbag technology and armrest designs. The SID-IIs head responses and deflection measures were sufficiently sensitive to discriminate between the various striking vehicles, crash configurations, airbag systems and armrest characteristics. The SID-IIs was found to be repeatable and durable and provides the opportunity to evaluate side impact protection in regions of the vehicle that cannot be evaluated with 50th percentile side impact dummies.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.014

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207