Bite Marks: Physical Properties of Ring Adhesion to Skin—Phase 1*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsupported excised skin may shrink by as much as 50% or more. In 1981, a method was developed for ring adhesion to skin with the goal of minimizing tissue distortion upon excision. Five modified versions of the technique bearing the author's name followed (Dorion types I, II, III, IV, and V). The scientific literature reveals little supporting empirical evidence for the preferential use of one adhesive/suturing technique over another. This study compares the use of various bonding materials (Loctite Super Glue gel(®) , Dermabond™, Vetbond™), cleaning agents (ethanol, dishwashing liquid, and shaving cream), and depilatory (Veet(®) ) on the effects of ring adhesion to skin. The conclusions indicate that surface wetness is the most influential factor affecting ring adhesion to skin, followed by the type of bonding material, its "freshness," and by the cleaning agent used to prepare the skin. The use of a depilatory or shaving cream is to be avoided.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".