Deformation and Fracture Mechanisms of Bone and Nacre
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone and nacre are the most-known biological hard tissues to materials researchers. Although highly mineralized, both bone and nacre are amazingly tough and exhibit remarkable inelasticity, properties that are still beyond the reach of many modern ceramic materials. Very interestingly, the two hard tissues seem to have adopted totally different structural strategies for achieving mechanical robustness. Starting from a true nanocomposite of the mineralized collagen fibril and following up to seven levels of hierarchical organization, bone is built on a structure with extreme complexity. In contrast, nacre possesses a structure of surprising simplicity. Polygonal mineral tablets of micrometer size are carefully cemented together into a macroscopic wonder. A comparative analysis of the structure-property relations in bone and nacre helps us to unveil the underlying mechanisms of this puzzling phenomenon. In this review, we critically compare the various levels of structures and their mechanical contributions between bone and nacre, with a focus on inelasticity and the toughening process. We demonstrate that, although nacre and bone differ from each other in many aspects, they have adopted very similar deformation and toughening mechanisms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it