Effect of posture on forces and moments measured in a Hybrid III ATD lower leg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are used to assess real injury risk to occupants of vehicles during injurious events. In the lower leg, values from load cells are compared to injury criteria developed in cadaveric studies. These criteria are typically developed with the leg in a neutral posture, whereas the ATD may assume a wide range of postures during safety evaluation tests. The degree to which the initial posture of an ATD has an effect on the measured forces and moments in the lower leg is unknown. METHODS: A Hybrid III ATD lower leg was impacted in a range of postures under conditions representing a crash test, and peak axial force and adjusted tibia index injury measures were evaluated. Ankle posture was varied in 5° increments using a custom-made footplate, and dorsi/plantarflexion (20° DF to 20° PF) and in/eversion (20° IV to 5° EV) were evaluated. Tibia angle was also varied (representing knee flexion/extension) by ±10° from neutral. RESULTS: Peak axial force was not affected by ankle flexion or tibia angulation. Adjusted tibia index was lowest for plantarflexion, as well as for tibia angles representative of knee extension. Both peak axial force and adjusted tibia index were lowest for postures of great inversion and were highest in neutral or near-neutral postures. CONCLUSIONS: The range of postures tested herein spanned published injury criteria and thus would have made the difference between pass and fail in a safety evaluation. In/eversion had the largest influence on injury metrics, likely due to the change in axial stiffness and altered impact durations in these postures. Results suggest increased injury risk at neutral or near-neutral postures, whereas previous cadaveric studies have suggested that in/eversion does not influence injury risk. It is unclear whether the ATD appropriately represents the natural lower leg for impacts in out-of-position testing. Great care must be taken when initially positioning ATDs for safety evaluations, because small perturbations in posture were shown herein to have large effects on the measured injury risk using this tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".