Biomedical Review of Aircrew Weight as a Risk Factor in CT 133 and CT 114 Ejections: 1970 - 1998
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review was undertaken in Jan 1999 in response to growing concern over Canadian Forces CT133 and CT114 aircraft ejection safety. Occupant weight was a suspected risk factor for serious injury or death during an ejection. A review of literature and examination of all CT133 and CT144 accident reports from 1970-98 was done to investigate occupant weight as a risk factor during all phases of ejection (firing of the seat, windblast and tumbling, seat-person separation, opening shock, landing forces, and post-landing factors). Heavy weight does not appear to be a significant risk factor for major injury or death from a biomedical perspective, although further study is recommended to clearly establish the influence of mass and body size on tumbling and seat-person separation. Heavy weight does lead to higher descent rates and possibly associated landing injury, although our data cannot establish this, nor can it rule out influence of inadequate training in landing technique. Light weight may be a risk factor with respect to injury associated with acceleration, tumbling and opening shock. It should be noted that there may be engineering concerns regarding these specific ejection systems that are outside the scope of this review.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".