MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752736277 · doi:10.1142/s0219519417501020

SMALL PUNCH TESTING: AN ALTERNATIVE TESTING TECHNIQUE TO EVALUATE TENSILE BEHAVIOR OF CORTICAL BONE

2017· article· en· W2752736277 on OpenAlexaff
Jagjit Singh, N. K. Sharma, Satbir S. Sehgal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCortical boneUltimate tensile strengthMaterials scienceTensile testingStiffnessAnisotropyElastic modulusComposite materialYoung's modulusUniaxial tensionModulusBiomedical engineeringAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tensile properties of cortical bone are usually determined with the help of uniaxial tensile test which requires enough amount of bone material. Further, it is very complicated to examine the heterogeneity and anisotropy associated with the deformational properties of cortical bone with the help of uniaxial tensile test. Through this study, small punch testing has been proposed as an alternate technique to evaluate the deformational behavior of cortical bone utilizing optimum amount of bone material. The comparison between elastic modulus values obtained from tensile test and stiffness values obtained through small punch testing was done for validation. The values of these properties were found to be having a significant positive correlation with each other. The effects of bone density and compositional parameters on these properties were also found to be having a similar trend. It is observed through this study that stiffness values from small punch technique are having a similarity with elastic modulus values from uniaxial tensile testing. It is proposed that small punch testing technique can be used as an alternate to examine the deformational behavior of cortical bone.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.144 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanics in Medicine and BiologySame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207