Multi-sector approximation method for arteries: the residual stresses of circumferential rings with non-trivial openings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The opening angle method is a popular choice in biomechanics to estimate residual stresses in arteries. Experimentally, it means that an artery is cut into rings; then the rings are cut axially or radially allowing them to open into sectors; finally, the corresponding opening angles are measured to give residual stress levels by solving an inverse problem. However, for many tissues, for example in pathological tissues, the ring does not open according to the theory into a neat single circular sector, but rather creates an asymmetric geometry, often with abruptly changing curvature(s). This phenomenon may be due to a number of reasons including variation in thickness, microstructure, mechanical properties, etc. As a result, these samples are often eliminated from studies relying on the opening angle method, which limits progress in understanding and evaluating residual stresses in real arteries. With this work, we propose an effective approach to deal with these non-trivial openings of rings. First, we digitize pictures of opened rings to split them into multiple, connected circular sectors. Then we measure the corresponding opening angles for each sub-sector. Subsequently, we can determine the residual stresses for individual sectors in a closed-ring configuration and, thus, approximate the circumferential residual bending effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".