RETRACTED ARTICLE: Human vulnerability assessment based on bullet motion and cavity expansion model with tissue identification
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We, the authors, Editors and Publisher of the journal Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, have retracted the following article:Jia, Y., Wen, Y., Dong, F., Qin, B., & Liu, R. (2024). Human vulnerability assessment based on bullet motion and cavity expansion model with tissue identification. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2023.2294263Since publication, the authors noticed an error in the setting of the model parameters during post-publication review of the methods and results.As this directly impacts the validity of the reported results and conclusions, the authors alerted the issue to the Editor and Publisher. All have agreed to retract the article to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record.We have been informed in our decision-making by our editorial policies and the COPE guidelines.The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as ‘Retracted’.
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 | 0.011 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.044 |
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".