MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2483472742 · doi:10.1177/096739110701500602

A Study of the Mechanics of Porous Plga 85/15 Scaffold in Compression

2007· article· en· W2483472742 on OpenAlexaff
Linus Leung, Josee K. Perron, Hani E. Naguib

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers and Polymer Composites · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialConstitutive equationPLGACompression (physics)Compressive strengthModulusPorosityElastic modulusStress (linguistics)Finite element methodStructural engineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constitutive modelling of the stress-strain relationship of open-celled PLGA 85/15 bioscaffolds under compression was studied. A constitutive model for compressive behaviour was directly derived from the morphology of a unit cubic cell. These constitutive equations describe the stress-strain relationship as a function of the foam's material properties and cell morphology, such as elastic modulus, yield stress, relative density, cell strut thickness, and cell size. To verify this model, uniaxial compression testing was performed on scaffold samples. Using the gas foaming/salt leaching method, the samples were prepared by using different foaming parameters such as salt/ polymer mass ratio, saturation pressure, and saturation time. The comparisons of theoretical and experimental data demonstrate that the constitutive model using a cubic unit cell accurately describes the behaviour of PLGA foams with low relative densities under compression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymers and Polymer CompositesSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207