Preliminary Material Evaluation of Flax Fibers for Prosthetic Socket Fabrication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composite prosthetic sockets are typically made of fiberglass or carbon fiber. These fibers have good mechanical properties, but relatively poor vibration damping. Flax fibers are claimed to have exceptional vibration damping properties, with the added benefit of being a natural renewable resource and a cost-effective alternative to synthetic fibers. Flax fibers could prove beneficial for prosthetic sockets, providing lightweight sockets that reduce vibrations transmitted to the body during movement. This research used impact testing (impulse hammer and custom drop tower) on flat and socket shaped composite samples to evaluate composite layer options. Sample vibration dissipation was measured by a combination of accelerometers, load cells, and a dynamometer. Composite sockets made purely of flax fibers were lighter and more efficient at damping vibrations, reducing the amplification of vibrations by a factor of nearly four times better than sockets made purely of carbon fiber. However, the bending stiffness, elastic moduli, and flexural strength of flax sockets fabricated using the traditional socket manufacturing method were found to be ten times lower than theoretical values of flax composites found in the literature. By increasing fiber volume fraction when using the traditional socket manufacturing method, the composite's mechanical properties, namely, vibration damping, could improve and flax fiber benefits could be explored further.
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 | 0.001 | 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".