MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024740471 · doi:10.1016/s1350-4533(01)00062-5

Measurement of cancellous bone strain during mechanical tests using a new extensometer device

2001· article· en· W2024740471 on OpenAlexaff
Steven K. Boyd, Nigel G. Shrive, Greg Wohl, Ralph Müller, Ron Zernicke

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtensometerMaterials scienceDeflection (physics)Composite materialStructural engineeringCancellous boneBiomedical engineeringEngineeringSurgeryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A device for measuring mid-substance strain in bone during uniaxial compression was developed with special attention to subsequent FE modelling. It is based on dual instrumented cantilever arms that measure the difference in tip-to-tip deflection. The so-called extensometer device was compared to two standard methods of measuring strain based on platen measurements. The extensometer device output was highly linear with tip deflection (r(2)>0.99), and contact of the devices with the specimen was optimized by using an axial distribution of three devices fixed in a free-floating jig. Deflection of the extensometer arms was accurate to 4.8 microm, and precision was between 2-5 microm. Tests included measuring rubber test specimens and cylindrical cancellous bone cores extracted from canine femoral condyles. A trend of decreasing apparent modulus with decreasing strain rate was evident with the extensometer technique. Correlation between the extensometer method and the other two methods was r(2)=0.55. The measure of mid-substance strain avoids non-linearities in the compression tests caused by early failure at the specimen ends, and the uniaxial testing conditions result in boundary conditions that are well suited for subsequent finite element analysis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207