Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extrusion bioprinting has been widely used to extrude continuous filaments of bioink (or the mixture of biomaterial and living cells), layer-by-layer, to build three-dimensional constructs for biomedical applications. In extrusion bioprinting, printability is an important parameter used to measure the difference between the designed construct and the one actually printed. This difference could be caused by the extrudability of printed bioink and/or the structural formability and stability of printed constructs. Although studies have reported in characterizing printability based on the bioink properties and printing process, the concept of printability is often confusingly and, sometimes, conflictingly used in the literature. The objective of this perspective is to define the printability for extrusion bioprinting in terms of extrudability, filament fidelity, and structural integrity, as well as to review the effect of bioink properties, bioprinting process, and construct design on the printability. Challenges related to the printability of extrusion bioprinting are also discussed, along with recommendations for improvements.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it