MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structure and Composition Comparison of Bone Mineral and Apatite Layers Formed in Vitro

2000· article· en· W2046958699 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKey engineering materials · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Technology and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApatiteComposition (language)MineralMaterials scienceMineralogyIn vitroGeochemistryGeologyChemistryMetallurgyBiochemistryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this in vitro study, the apatite formed on hydroxyapatite (HA) and alpha-tricalcium phosphates (α - TCP), as well as human trabecular bone were characterized with thin film X-ray diffraction (TF-XRD) and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR), as well as Scanning Electron Microscopy-Energy Dispersive X-ray spectra (SEM-EDX) to compare their structure and composition. The morphology and chemical compositions of the apatites formed on the HA and α - TCP exhibited a great difference. The Ca/P molar ratio of the apatite formed on the α - TCP is 1.5 close to bone, but the Ca/P molar ratio of the apatite formed on HA is 1.1. The Rietveld refinement showed that HA structure can be used to simulate the structure of apatites formed and bones mineral. The crystal size and microstrain of apatites and bone mineral exhibited great difference. These results indicated that the phase of calcium phosphate ceramics have certain effects on the composition and morphology of apatite in vitro. From the structure view, the apatites formed on HA and α - TCP is similar with bone minerals.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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