MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974784615 · doi:10.1142/s021951941000368x

A NUMERICAL TECHNIQUE TO EVALUATE THE FLEXURAL STIFFNESS OF LONG BONES AFFECTED BY CRACKS AND POROSITY

2010· article· en· W1974784615 on OpenAlexafffund
Hadi Mohammadi, Fereshteh Bahramian, Kibret Mequanint, Amin S. Rizkalla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStiffnessPorosityMaterials scienceFinite element methodBone resorptionStructural engineeringResorptionProcess (computing)Fracture (geology)Flexural strengthAccelerationComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone maintains its structure through a constant process of resorption and formation, in a process called bone remodeling. An imbalance in this process caused by disease, abnormal mechanical demands, or fatigue may predispose bone to fracture injuries. Increase in bone resorption can increase the number of surface cracks and structural porosity of the bone and thus change its stiffness properties. In this study, a computational technique is proposed to investigate the stiffness properties in long bones based on dynamic responses. As the first attempt, defects such as porosity and cracks are detected based on changes in stiffness properties of the sample. The least square algorithm and the finite element method are used as tools in this study. The Wilson-θ numerical method is employed to generate artificially experimental results for acceleration vectors. The data obtained from the artificial experiment is later employed to the proposed computational investigation model as raw data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanics in Medicine and BiologySame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207