MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041048821 · doi:10.1115/1.4030310

Non-Linear Model for Compression Tests on Articular Cartilage

2015· article· en· W2041048821 on OpenAlexaff
Alfio Grillo, Amr Guaily, Chiara Giverso, Salvatore Federico

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsotropyCompressibilityFinite element methodCompression (physics)Linear elasticityDeformation (meteorology)Benchmark (surveying)MechanicsMaterials sciencePhysicsComposite materialGeologyThermodynamicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrated soft tissues, such as articular cartilage, are often modeled as biphasic systems with individually incompressible solid and fluid phases, and biphasic models are employed to fit experimental data in order to determine the mechanical and hydraulic properties of the tissues. Two of the most common experimental setups are confined and unconfined compression. Analytical solutions exist for the unconfined case with the linear, isotropic, homogeneous model of articular cartilage, and for the confined case with the non-linear, isotropic, homogeneous model. The aim of this contribution is to provide an easily implementable numerical tool to determine a solution to the governing differential equations of (homogeneous and isotropic) unconfined and (inhomogeneous and isotropic) confined compression under large deformations. The large-deformation governing equations are reduced to equivalent diffusive equations, which are then solved by means of finite difference (FD) methods. The solution strategy proposed here could be used to generate benchmark tests for validating complex user-defined material models within finite element (FE) implementations, and for determining the tissue's mechanical and hydraulic properties from experimental 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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207