contact efficiency
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

27
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

8
(FIVE YEARS 1)

Author(s):  
Shuaishuai Zhou ◽  
Congzhen Qiao ◽  
Hao Yang ◽  
Chunxi Lu ◽  
Mengxi Liu

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 200-206
Author(s):  
Tadaaki Shimizu ◽  
Liuyun Li ◽  
Heizo Kato ◽  
Akimichi Hatta ◽  
Toshinori Kojima

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 3315-3319
Author(s):  
Shaowei Liu ◽  
Haiyu Miao ◽  
Ming Liu
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fransiscus Amonio Halawa ◽  
Fabianus Fensi

<p><em>This research was conducted to find out whether there were influences of E-Service Quality factors on student satisfaction. The objects of research in this study were the Active Students of Kalbis Institute in 2017, IT Department with 35 people. The variable used in this study is E-Service Quality and Student Satisfaction, the E-Service Quality variable is denoted as X variable, while the Student Satisfaction variable is denoted as variable Y. The data obtained was analyzed using multiple linear regression. The results of the study show that Responsiveness, Contact, Efficiency, System Avail</em><em>a</em><em>bility, and Privacy have no partial significant effect on student satisfaction, while the Compensation and Fullfilment variables have a partially significant effect on student satisfaction. Based on the results of the F test, it can be seen that simultaneously Contact, Efficiency, System Availability, Fullfillment, and Privacy have a significant effect on student satisfaction. According to the author's observation, Kalbisphere faces several problems, therefore it is necessary to improve the quality of Kalbisphere so that students feel more satisfied with the future Kalbisphere services.</em><em></em></p><p><em> </em></p><p><em> </em></p><strong><em>Keywords : </em></strong><em>E-Service Quality, Student satisfaction</em>, Kalbisphere


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
pp. 4938-4951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fan Fang ◽  
Peng Zhao ◽  
Nengjie Feng ◽  
Chong Chen ◽  
Xue Li ◽  
...  

The hollow structure is formed by Sr2+ doping in La0.9K0.1CoO3−δ nanofibers for decreasing the grain size, which can improve the contact efficiency of soot–catalyst–gas as well as the intrinsic activity, responsible for the enhancement in activity.


Particuology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 203-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiang Geng ◽  
Ping Wang ◽  
Xiaolin Zhu ◽  
Xinghua You ◽  
Chunyi Li

2015 ◽  
Vol 137 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joost Mattheijer ◽  
Just L. Herder ◽  
Gabriëlle J. M. Tuijthof ◽  
Edward R. Valstar

In joint replacement surgery, patient specific surgical guides (PSSGs) are used for accurate alignment of implant components. PSSGs are designed preoperatively to have a geometric fit with the patient's bone such that the incorporated guidance for drilling and cutting is instantly aligned. The surgeon keeps the PSSG in position with a pushing force, and it is essential that this position is maintained while drilling or cutting. Hence, the influence of the location and direction of the pushing force should be minimal. The extent that the pushing force may vary is what we refer to as docking robustness. In this article, we present a docking robustness framework comprising the following quantitative measures and graphical tool. Contact efficiency ηc is used for the quantification of the selected bone–guide contact. Guide efficiency ηg is used for the quantification of the whole guide including an application surface whereon the surgeon can push. Robustness maps are used to find a robust location for the application surface based on gradient colors. Robustness R is a measure indicating what angular deviation is minimally allowed at the worst point on the application surface. The robustness framework is utilized in an optimization of PSSG dimensions for the distal femur. This optimization shows that 12 contacts already result in a relatively high contact efficiency of 0.74 ± 0.02 (where the maximum of 1.00 is obtained when the guide is designed for full bone–guide contact). Six contacts seem to be insufficient as the obtained contact efficiency is only 0.18 ± 0.02.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document