A Quantitative Method to Guide the Integration of Textile Inductive Electrodes in Automotive Applications for Respiratory Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Induction-based breathing sensors in automobiles enable unobtrusive respiratory rate monitoring as an indicator of a driver's alertness and health. This paper introduces a quantitative method based on signal quality to guide the integration of textile inductive electrodes in automotive applications. A case study with a simplified setup illustrated the ability of the method to successfully provide basic design rules about where and how to integrate the electrodes on seat belts and seat backs to gather good quality respiratory signals in an automobile. The best signals came from the subject's waist, then from the chest, then from the upper back, and finally from the lower back. Furthermore, folding the electrodes before their integration on a seat back improves the signal quality for both the upper and lower back. This analysis provided guidelines with three design rules to increase the chance of acquiring good quality signals: (1) use a multi-electrode acquisition approach, (2) place the electrodes in locations that maximize breathing-induced body displacement, and (3) use a mechanical amplifying method such as folding the electrodes in locations with little potential for breathing-induced displacement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".