WorldSID responses in oblique and perpendicular pole tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA) Side Impact Working Group is proposing a 15-degree oblique pole test as part of a comprehensive side impact evaluation protocol. Since collision data from around the world indicate that young males are over-represented in single vehicle collisions into fixed objects, a side impact anthropometric test device representative of a 50th percentile adult male is believed to be the most appropriate dummy size to evaluate the protective capabilities of vehicles subjected to pole impacts. In support of the IHRA Side Impact Working Group activities, Transport Canada conducted a series of paired vehicle tests to compare the responses of WorldSID in 15-degree oblique pole tests to those observed in a perpendicular pole test. Vehicles included small North American vehicles equipped with head-thorax seat mounted side airbags and mid-size and SUVs equipped with both seat mounted thorax airbags and curtain technology. While the oblique test configuration tended to result in more elevated responses, a number of test parameters including side airbag deployments, dummy arm kinematics and dummy position were found to significantly affect dummy responses. WorldSID performance and thoracic measurement sensitivity in the oblique loading environment observed in the 15-degree pole test are discussed and compared to that of the ES-2re.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".