MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810864508 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2018.1493582

Head postures during naturalistic driving

2018· article· en· W2810864508 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason B. Fice, Jean‐Sébastien Blouin, Gunter P. Siegmund

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWhiplashPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHead (geology)Poison controlHybrid IIIPsychologyMedicineAudiologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: A rotated head posture at the time of a rear-end impact is associated with a higher risk of acute and chronic whiplash injury. The objective of this study was to quantify the amplitude and duration of rotated head postures observed in drivers during naturalistic driving.Methods: Twenty volunteers (14 males: 36 ± 12 years, 6 females: 27 ± 5 years) drove a 2010 Subaru Impreza on public roads while their 3D head angular position relative to the car was recorded using inertial measurement units. An experimenter rode in the passenger seat (right side) and logged when subjects performed one of 6 head movements: Bilateral shoulder and side mirror checks, looking at the rearview mirror, and looking at the front seat passenger. Video of the subjects was used to confirm the logged head movements and identify movements that the experimenter missed. The duration and amplitude of all 6 head movements were tabulated and then compared between periods when the car was moving and when the car was stationary.Results: During a 68 ± 5-min drive, subjects performed a median (range) of 15 (5–39) left shoulder checks, 82.5 (29–167) left mirror checks, 40.5 (10–168) rearview mirror checks, 27.5 (3–113) right mirror checks, 60 (0–185) passenger looks, and 12.5 (1–28) right shoulder checks. Peak yaw angles of the head relative to the vehicle for these 6 movements averaged −81.5°, −34.3°, 16.2°, 42.1°, 58.2°, and 84.3°, respectively. Drivers spent a larger proportion of time in nonneutral postures when the vehicle was stopped (17.5%) compared to moving (8.2%) (Z = 3.92, P < .0001). Drivers also moved their head further from neutral during the movements when the car was stationary compared to moving (t19 = 5.90, P < .0001).Conclusions: Drivers use larger and longer duration head movements when stationary than when driving. Given an increased risk of whiplash injury for initially rotated head postures, these findings provide a possible explanation for why drivers are more likely to be injured when hit from behind while their vehicle is stationary. Further, the head postures characterized in this study can be used as initial conditions in volunteer and computational studies to improve our understanding of why nonneutral head postures are associated with increased whiplash injury risk.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207