MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248389391 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14635704

Bio Modelling For Comfort Aircraft Chair Design

2021· preprint· en· W4248389391 on OpenAlexaff
Xianzhi Zhong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCushionWork (physics)CurvatureFocus (optics)Computer scienceEngineeringSimulationStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work presented in this report is to help develop and complete the methodology that can quickly predict the pressure distribution and estimate the comfortability of the aircraft seat. For this thesis, the human back and spine are introduced and modelled as the focus is only on the backrest of the aircraft seat. The bio modelling of the back and spine consists of the geometry including the spine curvature and back shape at various conditions. The variables include the body type of the sitter, the sitting posture and the backrest recline angle. Multiple cases of the body condition combining the these mentioned variables were modelled, which generates a comparatively inclusive human model for the future work of pressure distribution analysis. The initial building of the spine curve is based on an existing spine data, and the back shape is captured by experiments using 3D scanning technology. Forces acting on the spine are also obtained as a part of the modelling. With this more complete the inclusive bio model of the body, the pattern of the contact and pressure can then determine a more efficient configuration of cushion or aircraft seat innovation and design to achieve a better comfort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207