Suggestions(1)
Exact(1)
The test specimen was scaled down from a prototype structure to a 1/3 model due to laboratory space constraint.
Similar(59)
All included specimens were scaled to a uniform condylobasal skull length or mandibular length, as appropriate, of 100 mm, at an image resolution of 700 dpi.
The morphological data were analyzed using a Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), in which the digitized points were rotated and translated and specimens were scaled to the same size, such that the only remaining differences among them were directly attributable to shape.
This specimen can be scaled to the size of ROM 784, and measurements of the volume of this specimen can be substituted for ROM 784.
All other specimen dimensions were scaled to 80%, resulting in cross-sections of 0.61 in width and 0.98 m in height.
In this case, AMNH 5245 is the less complete specimen, so it is scaled to the size of ROM 788.
It makes use of flat dogbone-shaped, notched, central hole and smiley-shear micro-specimens that have been scaled down from their macroscopic counterparts in a way that the critical gage section dimensions do not exceed 500 μm.
The specimens tested in the present study are scaled specimens of the full-scale sub-assemblage tested by Lew et al. (2011).
Analysis was performed blinded by pathologist and each specimen was scored on a scale from 0 to 40 as follows: severity of inflammation (0 3: none, slight, moderate, severe), epithelial erosion (0 3: none, none, slight, moderate, severe), and crypt damage (0 4: none, basal 1/3 damaged, basal 2/3 damaged, only surface epithelium intact, entire crypt and epithelium lost).
The percentage of stained cells in each specimen was scored on a scale of 0 3, in which 0 denoted negative staining, score 1 positivity in 1 30% of hepatocytes, score 2 positivity in 31 50% and score 3 in more than 50%.
The scaled specimen was modeled using a maximum manufacturing size that is one-tenth an actual building size to accommodate the capacity of the shaking table (6 m × 6 m, 800 KN, 6 DOF).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com