MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388862232 · doi:10.1080/00085030.2023.2281006

Background and persistence of fibers on vehicle seat belts

2023· article· en· W4388862232 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marie-Christine Bolduc, André Y. Tremblay, Cyril Muehlethaler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsInternational Centre for Comparative CriminologyUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeat beltPersistence (discontinuity)PopulationFiberClothingEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringAutomotive engineeringMaterials scienceGeographyGeotechnical engineeringMedicineComposite materialArchaeologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Examination of the fibers transferred to vehicle seats and seat belts makes it possible to establish links in cases of vehicle theft or road accidents. Unlike seats, seat belts often have fibers that are fused to them owing to the significant forces encountered in the event of an accident, fibers that can be evaluated for their persistence and significant probative value. The aim of the project is to determine the background fiber population naturally present on seat belts, as well as to carry out simulations to study the persistence of the fibers. These were determined using zonal samples from seat belts of ten different vehicles. For the experiments, drivers of the vehicles had to wear a luminescent T-shirt for a total of 30 min, then remove it and continue driving normally for variable periods of time. The results show that the persistence of fibers on seat belts is heavily influenced by the number of times the driver fastened/unfastened their seat belt. The background population of fibers is comparable to the literature but can show important deviations when specific clothes are worn by the driver (i.e., winter accessories).

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society of Forensic Science JournalSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207