MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947257578 · doi:10.1115/1.4043870

Assessment of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Behavior of Cortical Bone Using a Small Punch Testing Technique

2019· article· en· W2947257578 on OpenAlexaff
Jagjit Singh, N. K. Sharma, M. D. Sarker, Saman Naghieh, Satbir S. Sehgal, Daniel Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCortical boneFracture toughnessMaterials scienceFracture (geology)ToughnessBone fractureLinear regressionAnisotropyComposite materialMathematicsAnatomyStatisticsMedicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fracture properties of cortical bone are directly coupled to its complex hierarchical structure. The limited availability of bone material from many anatomic locations creates challenges for assessing the effect of bone heterogeneity and anisotropy on fracture properties. The small punch technique was employed to examine the fracture behavior of cortical bone in terms of area under the curve values obtained from load-load point displacement behavior. Fracture toughness of cortical bone was also determined in terms of J-toughness values obtained using a compact tension (CT) test. Area under the curve values obtained from the small punch test were correlated with the J-toughness values of cortical bone. The effects of bone density and compositional parameters on area under the curve and Jtoughness values were also analyzed using linear and multiple regression analysis. Area under the curve and J-toughness values are strongly and positively correlated. Bone density and %mineral content are positively correlated with both area under the curve and J-toughness values. The multiple regression analysis outcomes support these results. Overall, the findings support the hypothesis that area under the curve values obtained from small punch tests can be used to assess the fracture 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207