MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156815689 · doi:10.1002/adfm.200801234

A Unique Microcracking Process Associated with the Inelastic Deformation of Haversian Bone

2008· article· en· W2156815689 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Ebacher, Rizhi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Functional Materials · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceShear (geology)Deformation (meteorology)Composite materialFracture (geology)Human boneCollagen fibrilAnatomyChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the discovery of the Haversian system in human bone over three hundred years ago, researchers have been wondering about its mechanical advantages. Despite positive experimental evidences on the intervention of Haversian systems in the fracture process, the contributions of Haversian systems to bone fracture have been obscure. Here a unique microcracking process accompanying the inelastic deformation of Haversian bone is reported that may shine light on its structural advantages over other bones. When compressed transversely, the concentric bone lamellae surrounding each Haversian canal allow multiple radial microcracks and arc‐shaped cracks to develop intralamellarly. Groups of circumferential arc‐shaped microcracks develop in high shear zones and radiate out in oblique directions from each Haversian canal. At the cortical bone level, where the Haversian systems are randomly distributed within the interstitial matrix, multiple nucleations and stable development of such arc‐shaped cracks happen to most Haversian systems progressively. As a result, Haversian bone is not sensitive to the presence of Haversian canals and demonstrates high inelastic strains at macroscopic level.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Functional MaterialsSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207