MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066653843 · doi:10.1115/sbc2010-19274

Evaluation of Synthetic Composite Tibias for Fracture Testing

2010· article· en· W2066653843 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl E. Quenneville, Gillian S. Greeley, Cynthia E. Dunning

Bibliographic record

VenueASME 2010 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsGeneral Dynamics (Canada)Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite numberMaterials scienceEpoxyPolyurethaneComposite materialGlass fiberFracture (geology)Biomedical engineeringCore (optical fiber)OrthodonticsEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composite synthetic bones are widely used in orthopaedic research. They offer many advantages over post mortem human specimens, including low inter-specimen variability in both geometry and material properties, ready availability, and ease of handling, storage and disposal. Fourth generation models of Sawbones® (Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Vashon, WA, USA) are made using a short glass fiber reinforced epoxy resin injected around a core of rigid polyurethane foam. These composite bones have been previously validated to replicate natural bone response at a quasi-static rate [1].

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.003
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME 2010 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Parts A and BSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207