Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the suitability of a plaster-fibreglass hybrid cast for orthopedic applications, comparing them to plaster of Paris (POP) and fibreglass constructs. METHOD: Groups of 10 standardized hybrid, POP and fibreglass casts were studied. An Instron servohydraulic system was used to test the casts in 3-point bending and shear. OUTCOME MEASURES: Strength, stiffness, weight, thickness and cost of the 3 types of cast, and shear strength at the interface between the POP and fibreglass in the hybrid casts. RESULTS: The hybrid casts were twice as strong as the POP constructs, were stiffer and weighed 14% less but were thicker and cost 2.5 times more. They were almost as strong as and less than half the cost of the fibreglass constructs but were thicker, not as stiff, and weighed 42% more. The shear strength of the POP-fibreglass interface in the hybrid casts was higher than the 3-point bending strength of this construct by a factor of 3. CONCLUSIONS: Plaster-fibreglass hybrid casts should be considered for orthopedic use on the basis of their strength, stiffness, weight and cost, combined with their acknowledged advantages of good moulding ability and water resistance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".