Experimental analysis of drilling process in cortical bone
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 drilling is an essential part in orthopaedics, traumatology and bone biopsy. Prediction and control of drilling forces and torque are critical to the success of operations involving bone drilling. This paper studied the drilling force, torque and drilling process with automatic and manual drill penetrating into bovine cortical bone. The tests were performed on a drilling system which is used to drill and measure forces and torque during drilling. The effects of drilling speed, feed rate and drill bit diameter on force and torque were discussed separately. The experimental results were proven to be in accordance with the mathematic expressions introduced in this paper. The automatic drilling saved drilling time by 30-60% in the tested range and created less vibration, compared to manual drilling. The deviation between maximum and average force of the automatic drilling was 5N but 25N for manual drilling. To conclude, using the automatic method has significant advantages in control drilling force, torque and drilling process in bone drilling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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