MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385989006 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19254

Head impact kinematics and injury risks during E-scooter collisions against a curb

2023· article· en· W4385989006 on OpenAlexafffund
Marion Fournier, Nicolas Bailly, Andreas Schäuble, Yvan Petit

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHybrid IIIKinematicsAccelerationCrashworthinessCollisionCrashConcussionAngular accelerationPoison controlAutomotive engineeringHead (geology)SimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringInjury preventionPhysicsMedicineGeologyEmergency medicineComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E-scooters as a mode of transportation is rapidly growing in popularity. This study evaluates head impact conditions and injury risk associated with E-scooter crashes. A multibody model of E-scooter falls induced by wheel-curb collision was built and compared with an experimental E-scooter crash test. A total of 162 crash scenarios were simulated to assess the effect of fall conditions (E-scooter initial speed and inclination, obstacle orientation, and user size) on the head impact kinematics. The forehead hit the ground first in 44% of simulations. The average tangential and normal impact speeds were 3.5 m/s and 4.8 m/s respectively. Nearly 100% of simulations identified a risk of concussion (linear acceleration peak >82 g and rotational acceleration peak >6383 rad/s 2 ) and 90% of simulations suggested a risk of severe head injuries (HIC>700). This work provides preliminary data useful for the assessment and design of protective gears.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207