Crash, Sled, and Performance Testing of Rear-Facing Securement Systems in Urban Low-Floor Buses for Passengers in Wheelchairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of several testing scenarios of urban low floor buses equipped with a rear-facing securement system for wheelchair passengers. Frontal crash tests were carried out to investigate the amount of g forces a passenger in a wheelchair would be exposed to during a frontal vehicle collision. Sled tests were performed to observe how the dummy and the wheelchair types reacted when exposed to a 3 g impact on a variety of back panel angles. Performance tests were conducted to determine the longitudinal and lateral forces in the bus, and to observe the reaction of the dummy in different types of wheelchairs under server driving conditions. Frontal crash tests results at 50 km/h indicated that the deceleration on the load cell holding a wheelchair with a simulated passenger weight measured below 3 g. Performance test results indicated a maximum lateral force of 0.3 g, and a longitudinal deceleration force of 0.8 g for the dummy and wheelchair, measured by accelerometers on the bus floor. The sled test results, using 3 g for the impact on a back panel mock-up with different angles were inconclusive to determine the appropriate back angel degree, but showed that the passenger and the wheelchair would be safe under these circumstances. It was concluded that the 3 g forces as indicated in the Canadian Standards Associations CSA Standard D435-02 were validated and that the rear-facing system is a safe system to be used in large low floor urban buses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".