MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964848141 · doi:10.1111/cgf.12444

Freeform Honeycomb Structures

2014· article· en· W1964848141 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePolygon meshHexagonal crystal systemTorsion (gastropod)Honeycomb structureGeometryComputationComputer graphics (images)Topology (electrical circuits)Engineering drawingComputational scienceMathematicsAlgorithmEngineeringCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivated by requirements of freeform architecture, and inspired by the geometry of hexagonal combs in beehives, this paper addresses torsion‐free structures aligned with hexagonal meshes. Since repetitive geometry is a very important contribution to the reduction of production costs, we study in detail “honeycomb structures”, which are defined as torsion‐free structures where the walls of cells meet at 120 degrees. Interestingly, the Gauss‐Bonnet theorem is useful in deriving information on the global distribution of node axes in such honeycombs. This paper discusses the computation and modeling of honeycomb structures as well as applications, e.g. for shading systems, or for quad meshing. We consider this paper as a contribution to the wider topic of freeform patterns, polyhedral or otherwise. Such patterns require new approaches on the technical level, e.g. in the treatment of smoothness, but they also extend our view of what constitutes aesthetic freeform geometry.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.174 · 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