MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383159518

The crashworthiness of guardrail to defend the impact of heavyvehicle

2006· article· en· W2383159518 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengbao Lei

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Safety and Impact Analysis
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashworthinessEngineeringStructural engineeringForensic engineeringFinite element method
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crashworthiness of fence to defend the impact of heavy-vehicle is studied using the LS-DYNA.The results show that there are seriously safe problem in currently guardrail,and the direction to develop the guardrail design technology is given: ①During the impact process,the contact between heavyvehicle and concrete guardrail maybe only show that the heavyvehicle front-wheel crawl on the slope of the concrete guardrail and the contact maybe not exist between heavyvehicle body and concrete guardrail,even the height of the concrete guardrail is not effective.Only after overturning,the height of the concrete guardrail can restrain the heavyvehicle keeping overturning,which has been overturned when the heavyvehicle body crashes the concrete guardrail.②The ability of the steel guardrail preventing the heavyvehicle from overturning is better than the concrete guardrail,but it will be destroyed by the gravity of lose control heavyvehicle much possibly and the shortage of the guardrail integrality is shown.③The heavyvehicle safety was solved drastically,the criterion of guardrail design should be more improved,and the new mechanism of guardrail crashworthiness should be developed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation Safety and Impact AnalysisFrench-language works237,207