Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational analysis of occupant safety has become an efficient tool to reduce the development time for a new product. Multi-body computer models (e.g. Madymo models) that simulate vehicle interior, restraint system and occupants in various crash modes have been widely used in the occupant safety area. To ensure public safety, many injury numbers, such as head injury criteria, chest acceleration, chest deflection, femur loads, neck load, and neck moment, are monitored. Deterministic optimization methods have been employed to meet various safety requirements. However, with the further emphasis on product quality and consistency of product performance, variations in modeling, simulation, and manufacturing, need to be considered. There are many difficulties involved in the optimization under uncertainty for occupant restraint systems, such as (1) highly nonlinear and noisy nature of occupant injury numbers; (2) large number of constraints; and (3) computational intensity to obtain the statistic information of injury numbers by the traditional Monte Carlo method. This paper proposes an integrated robust design method for occupant restraint system design, which takes advantages of design of experiments, variable screening, metamodeling, and genetic algorithm. An occupant restraint system design is used as an example to demonstrate the method; however, the proposed approach is generic and can be applied to other occupant restraint system design problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".