MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986894640 · doi:10.1139/z06-195

Bone microstructure: quantifying bone vascular orientation

2007· article· en· W1986894640 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
M. de Boef, Hans C. E. Larsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsMicrostructureOrientation (vector space)BiologyAnatomyBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceMedicineMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone microstructure often preserves a temporal record of the life history of the animal to which it belongs. Previously used bone microstructure metrics to differentiate between primary bone types are reviewed and tested with a broad sample of bone types. Two new metrics, the radial index and the longitudinal index, are developed to quantitatively differentiate bone types based on bone vascular orientation in three dimensions. All previously used metrics described the bone microstructure in a nonlinear pattern and were unable to separate bone types satisfactorily. The radial index and longitudinal index effectively differentiated bone types and described bone microstructure within a linear continuum. The continuous nature of the range of vascular orientation in bone microstructure necessitates a quantitative approach rather than the commonly used qualitative classifications. The radial index and longitudinal index, which objectively detect small differences in vascular orientation in three dimensions, are therefore preferable to other metrics for inter- and intra-specific comparisons of bone microstructure. These metrics offer novel methods to facilitate examinations of the relationship between primary bone type and ontogeny, biomechanics, and phylogeny.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207