高层官员地震应急演练中应急决策行为的质性分析

为了研究高层官员在非常规突发事件应对中的决策行为,通过地震应急演练,从决策建议的影响、决策对象的选择与优先级排序等方面对决策样本进行质性分析。应用NVivo12软件对某次高层官员参与的特大地震应急决策演练中采集的45份决策样本,在结构化处理的基础上确定编码标准,遍历样本并对应急决策编码,得到观测数据并进行分析。研究结果表明,演练中的高层官员决策行为有以下3方面特征:受决策建议影响明显;在灾情、舆情以及基础设施等方面有自主决策;不同层级间对决策权重排序存在显著差异。     

Driving self-regulation and ride service utilization in a multicommunity,multistate sample of U.S. older adults

Objectives: This study examined a multicommunity alternative transportation program available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for any purpose, offering door-through-door service in private automobiles to members who either do not drive or are transitioning away from driving. Specific aims were to describe the characteristics of members by driving status and ride service usage of these members.

Methods: Data came from administrative records maintained by a nonprofit ride service program and include 2,661 individuals aged 65+ residing in 14 states who joined the program between April 1, 2010, and November 8, 2013. Latent class analysis was used to group current drivers into 3 classes of driving status of low, medium, and high self-regulation, based on their self-reported avoidance of certain driving situations and weekly driving frequency. Demographics and ride service use rate for rides taken through March 31, 2014, by type of ride (e.g., medical, social, etc.) were calculated for nondrivers and drivers in each driving status class.

Results: The majority of ride service users were female (77%) and aged 65–74 years (82%). The primary method of getting around when enrolling for the transportation service was by riding with a friend or family member (60%). Among the 67,883 rides given, nondrivers took the majority (69%) of rides. Medical rides were the most common, accounting for 40% of all rides.

Conclusions: Reported ride usage suggests that older adults are willing to use such ride services for a variety of trips when these services are not limited to specific types (e.g., medical). Further research can help tailor strategies to encourage both nondrivers and drivers to make better use of alternative transportation that meets the special needs of older people.     

The relative contribution of visual and auditory cues to environmental perception

This study assesses the relative dominance of vision and hearing in judgments of environments, and examines whether the sound sensitivity of the judge alters relative sensory dominance. Six sets of four composite (auditory-plus-visual) videotaped environmental displays were created from unisensory visual and auditory components with known levels of evoked affect. These displays, in a 2 (high, low) × 2 (high, low) Pleasure and/or Arousal format, were presented to 70 participants. The results indicate that visual cues dominate auditory cues in judgments of Pleasure, but that the degree of dominance is highly variable. Arousal judgments were not consistently related to visual or auditory cues. Sound sensitivity does not appear to influence the relative dominance of vision.     

基于LCS的应急决策文本相似性比对分析模型

作为应急管理中的主要工作内容,应急决策在整个应急管理工作中具有战略意义,为了对危机情境下的应急决策主体进行聚类分析,定量计算不同决策主体之间相应决策文本的区别。借鉴最长公共子序列模型（LCS）的原理,从决策文本中提取主题词,根据决策文本的特点将其分为“目标”和“行动”2级,结合样本总体确定替换矩阵、空位罚分规则和目标函数,构建高层应急决策文本相似性比对分析模型;运用Needleman Wunsch算法对该模型进行求解;通过对得到的地震情景下的高层应急决策文本的分析,证明模型的有效性和可行性;为了避免序列长度差过大对聚类分析的结果影响,在此基础上提出相对相似性得分的概念,并通过与VSM算法得到的结果进行比较,证明该模型在应急决策文本相似性分析中的优越性。     

基于“情景-应对”数据的高层官员应急决策行为分析框架

为研究突发事件应急处置过程中关键官员的决策行为,充实面向高层官员的决策行为实证研究方法,提出基于“情景-应对”数据的高层官员决策行为分析框架。通过设置情景、决策者、决策过程和决策变量以及变量间的作用关系建立框架运行理论内核,从情景选择到决策样本“生成→采集→处理→分析”各环节搭建框架支持完成高层官员决策行为的研究。通过某高层官员地震应急决策模拟演练实例,验证该分析框架的有效性。研究结果表明:基于“情景-应对”数据的分析框架可实现对高层官员决策行为的实证研究,可优化开发以支持更多元化的研究。     

高一化学教学中实施研究性学习的探索

本文根据国家教育部制定的《全日制普通高级中学课程计划(试验修订稿)》所提出的新的培养目标，在“研究性学习”课程的实践中，煞合化学学科特点，选择“环境保护”为突破口，联系本地区实际开展环境教育活动。就“研究性学习”课题的选择、实施进行了探索，提出了我们的认识和见解。     

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters

Objective: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits.

Methods: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars.

Results: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt–induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%.

Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.     

Differences in the kinematics of booster-seated pediatric occupants using two different car seats

Objective: The objective of this article is to compare the performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (CRS) mounted on 2 different seats.

Methods: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. Two different seats (seat A, seat B) were used. Three repetitions per ATD and mounting seat were done, resulting in a total of 12 sled crashes. Dummy sensors measured the head tri-axial acceleration and angular rate and the thorax tri-axial acceleration, all acquired at 10,000 Hz. A high-speed video camera recorded the impact at 1,000 frames per second. The 3D kinematics of the head and torso of the ATDs were captured using a high-speed motion capture system (1,000 Hz). A pair-matched statistical analysis compared the outcomes of the tests using the 2 different seats.

Results: Statistically significant differences in the kinematic response of the ATDs associated with the type of seat were observed. The maximum 3 ms peak of the resultant head acceleration was higher on seat A for the P3 dummy (54.5 ± 1.9 g vs. 44.2 ± 0.5 g; P =.012) and for the P6 dummy (56.0 ± 0.8 g vs. 51.7 ± 1.2 g; P =.015). The peak belt force was higher on seat A than on seat B for the P3 dummy (5,488.0 ± 198.0 N vs. 4,160.6 ± 63.6 N; P =.008) and for the P6 dummy (7,014.0 ± 271.0 N vs. 5,719.3 ± 37.4 N; P =.015). The trajectory of the ATD head was different between the 2 seats in the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes.

Conclusion: The results suggest that the overall response of the booster-seated occupant exposed to the same impact conditions was different depending on the seat used regardless of the size of the ATD. The differences observed in the response of the occupants between the 2 seats can be attributed to the differences in cushion stiffness, seat pan geometry, and belt geometry. However, these results were obtained for 2 particular seat models and a specific CRS and therefore cannot be directly extrapolated to the generality of vehicle seats and CRS.     

Census Study of Real-Life Near-Side Crashes with Modern Side Airbag-Equipped Vehicles in the United States

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the crash characteristics, injury distribution, and injury mechanisms for Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score (MAIS) 2+ injured belted, near-side occupants in airbag-equipped modern vehicles. Furthermore, differences in injury distribution for senior occupants compared to non-senior occupants was investigated, as well as whether the near-side occupant injury risk to the head and thorax increases or decreases with a neighboring occupant.

Method: National Automotive Sampling System's Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data from 2000 to 2012 were searched for all side impacts (GAD L&R, all principal direction of force) for belted occupants in modern vehicles (model year > 1999). Rollovers were excluded, and only front seat occupants over the age of 10 were included. Twelve thousand three hundred fifty-four MAIS 2+ injured occupants seated adjacent to the intruding structure (near-side) and protected by at least one deployed side airbag were studied. To evaluate the injury risk influenced by the neighboring occupant, odds ratio with an induced exposure approach was used.

Result: The most typical crash occurred either at an intersection or in a left turn where the striking vehicle impacted the target vehicle at a 60 to 70° angle, resulting in a moderate change of velocity (delta-V) and intrusion at the B-pillar. The head, thorax, and pelvis were the most frequent body regions with rib fracture the most frequent specific injury. A majority of the head injuries included brain injuries without skull fracture, and non-senior rather than senior occupants had a higher frequency of head injuries on the whole. In approximately 50% of the cases there was a neighboring occupant influencing injury outcome.

Conclusion: Compared to non-senior occupants, the senior occupants sustained a considerably higher rate of thoracic and pelvis injuries, which should be addressed by improved thorax side airbag protection. The influence on near-side occupant injury risk by the neighboring occupant should also be further evaluated. Furthermore, side airbag performance and injury assessments in intersection crashes, especially those involving senior occupants in lower severities, should be further investigated and side impact dummy biofidelity and injury criteria must be determined for these crash scenarios.     

Driver and front passenger injury in frontal crashes: Update on the effect of unbelted rear occupants

Purpose: This is a study of the influence of an unbelted rear occupant on the risk of severe injury to the front seat occupant ahead of them in frontal crashes. It provides an update to earlier studies.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for severe injury (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score [MAIS] 4+F) to belted drivers and front passengers in frontal crashes by the presence of a belted or unbelted passenger seated directly behind them or without a rear passenger. Frontal crashes were identified with GAD1 = F without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front and rear outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4+F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0+F. Standard errors were determined.

Results: The risk for severe injury was 0.803 ± 0.263% for the driver with an unbelted left rear occupant and 0.100 ± 0.039% with a belted left rear occupant. The driver's risk was thus 8.01 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted occupant (P <.001). With an unbelted right rear occupant behind the front passenger, the risk for severe injury was 0.277 ± 0.091% for the front passenger. The corresponding risk was 0.165 ± 0.075% when the right rear occupant was belted. The front passenger's risk was 1.68 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant behind them than a belted occupant (P <.001). The driver's risk for MAIS 4+F was highest when their seat was deformed forward. The risk was 9.94 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted rear occupant when the driver's seat deformed forward. It was 13.4 ± 12.2% with an unbelted occupant behind them and 1.35 ± 0.95% with a belted occupant behind them.

Conclusions: Consistent with prior literature, seat belt use by a rear occupant significantly lowered the risk for severe injury to belted occupants seated in front of them. The reduction was greater for drivers than for front passengers. It was 87.5% for the driver and 40.6% for the front passenger. These results emphasize the need for belt reminders in all seating positions.