MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397929842

Misfit and functional loading of craniofacial implants.

2004· article· en· W2397929842 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceStrain gaugeSuperstructureCraniofacialImplantBiomedical engineeringDistortion (music)In vivoOrthodonticsStructural engineeringComposite materialMedicineSurgeryOptoelectronicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study sought to develop an understanding of the magnitude and types of loads generated on craniofacial implants supporting an auricular prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Strain gauges were used to measure the in vitro and in vivo misfit loads generated when connecting auricular-style superstructures to implants and the in vivo functional load generated during the removal and insertion of the auricular prostheses. In addition, the vertical misfit of the 11 custom-built two-implant superstructures used in the in vitro study was measured. RESULTS: Superstructures used in the in vitro study that were considered clinically passive still had considerable preloads. In addition, the calibrated loads, which would result from the vertical misfit alone, did not account for the magnitude of the generated preloads. CONCLUSION: The clinical definition of misfit based on vertical distortion of the superstructure did not quantify the resulting misfit load. Measured in vivo functional loads were smaller than the misfit loads.

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 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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.203 · 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