MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377825721 · doi:10.1177/00219983231177373

Empirical modeling of force and temperature in drilling bone-simulating hybrid composites

2023· article· en· W4377825721 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahmoud Abusrea, Keivan Ahmadi, A. Sadek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialDrillingThrustFibre-reinforced plasticComposite numberCancellous boneMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid polymer composites are utilized in biomechanical design and orthopedic surgery training to imitate the thermomechanical behavior of human bones. Despite extensive research on the mechanics of hybrid composites in biomechanical design, information on their thermomechanical response during orthopedic drilling operations is scarce. This paper presents a new experimental study to characterize the force and temperature generated during the drilling of hybrid composites that simulate human bones. To simulate the hybrid multi-layer structure of bones, the studied composite comprises a Polyurethane core sandwiched between Glass-Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) layers—the former resembling the cancellous part of the bone and the latter cortical layers. This study also identifies an empirical relationship between thrust force, temperature, drilling feed and speed, and composite composition. Empirical models are developed using multivariate polynomial regression (MPR) and artificial neural network (ANN) to predict the force and temperature during drilling. The models have a correlation coefficient of above 0.9 between predicted and measured results and can be used to improve orthopedic drilling design and control.

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)0.000
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 score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207