Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Solid and physical modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Symposium on Solid and Physical Modeling is an annual international forum for the exchange of recent research results and applications of spatial modeling and computations in design, analysis and manufacturing, as well as in emerging biomedical, geophysical and other areas. Previous symposia in this series were held in Austin, Texas, 1991; Montreal, Canada, 1993; Salt Lake City, Utah, 1995; Atlanta, Georgia, 1997; Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1999 and 2001; Saarbrucken, Germany, 2002; Seattle, Washington, 2003; Genova, Italy, 2004; and Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005. For additional information, please visit www.solidmodeling.org, the home page of The Solid Modeling Association that oversees this symposium series.The SPM symposium series started initially with the name ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications. To emphasize the fact that solid modeling entails not only handling their geometric shapes, but also their physical properties and behaviors, the name of the symposium was expanded to The Symposium on Solid and Physical Modeling (abbreviated as SPM) in 2005.SPM'06 was held in plenary sessions on the campus of Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom from Tuesday June 6 to Thursday June 8, 2006. Fifty six technical papers have been submitted and were reviewed by the international program committee and expert reviewers from around the world. At least three external reviewers and members of the program committee reviewed and discussed each submission. A total of 21 refereed papers have been selected for plenary presentation and publication in the proceedings. The symposium program also includes three invited presentations by Bruno Levy, Sara McMains and Jurgen Weese, all leading researchers in their fi elds. There were also two panels where recent trends and challenges were discussed. These panel sessions were organized by Kenji Shimada (Physical Modeling and Simulation) and Sara McMains (Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing).
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 | 0.000 | 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".