Evaluation of Urban Traffic Accidents Based on Pedestrian Landing Injury Risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In comparison with vehicle-to-pedestrian collision, pedestrian-to-ground contact usually results in more unpredictable injuries (e.g., intracranial, neck, and abdominal injuries). Although there are many studies for different applications of such methods, this paper conducts an in-depth analysis of urban traffic pedestrian accidents. The effects of pedestrian rotation angle (PRA) and pedestrian facing orientation (PFO) on head and neck injury risk in a ground contact are investigated by the finite element numerical models and different probabilistic analyses. It goes without saying that this study provides a theoretical basis for the prediction and protection study of pedestrian ground contact injury risk. In our experiments, 24 pedestrian-to-ground simulations are carried out by the THUMS v4.0.2 model considering eight PRAs (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°, 360°) and three PFOs (x+, x−, y+). Each test was simulated with loading the average linear and rotational velocities that obtained from real-world pedestrian accidents at the pedestrian’s center of gravity. The results show that both PRAs and PFOs have significant impacts on head and neck injuries. Head HIC value caused by PRA 0–135° is much higher than that caused by PRA 180–315°. Neck injury risk caused by PRA 180° is the greatest one in comparison with other PRAs. The PRAs 90° and 270° usually induce a relatively lower neck injury risk. For PFO, the risk of head and neck injury was lower than PFOy+ and PFOx+ or PFOx−, which means PFOy+ was a safer landing orientation for both head and neck. The potential risk of head and neck injuries caused by the ground contact was strongly associated with the symmetry/asymmetric features of human anatomy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".