Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. In vitro biomechanical flexibility experiment studying 5 sequential conditions. Objective. To determine the biomechanical differences among 3 fixation techniques after a simulated hangman’s fracture. Summary of Background Data. Type II hangman’s fractures are often treated surgically with a C2–C3 anterior cervical discectomy, fusion, and plating. Other techniques include direct fixation with C2 pars interarticularis screws or posterior C2–C3 fixation connecting C2 pars screws to C3 lateral mass screws. Methods. Seven cadaveric specimens (Oc–C4) were tested intact, after a simulated hangman’s fracture, and after each fixation technique. Flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were induced using nonconstraining torques while recording angular motions stereophotogrammetrically. Results. Direct screw fixation reduced motion an average of 61% ± 13% during lateral bending and axial rotation compared to the injured state (P < 0.007). However, instability remained during flexion and extension. Posterior C2–C3 rod fixation provided significantly greater rigidity than anterior plate fixation during lateral bending (P < 0.008) and axial rotation (P < 0.04). Conclusions. Direct fixation of the pars ineffectively limits flexion and extension after a Type II hangman’s fracture. If pars screw fixation can be achieved, posterior C2–C3 fixation more effectively stabilizes a hangman’s fracture than anterior cervical plating. Type II hangman’s fracture was simulated in vitro. Three methods of fixating the injury were compared biomechanically: direct C2 pars fixation, anterior C2–C3 plating, and posterior C2 pars screws connected to C3 lateral mass screws. Direct pars fixation restored moderate stability, and posterior fixation was more rigid than anterior fixation.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it