MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970579068 · doi:10.1243/09544062jmes174

Expandable Polyhedral Mechanisms Based on Polygonal One-Degree-of-Freedom Faces

2006· article· en· W1970579068 on OpenAlexafffund
Clément Gosselin, D Gagnon-Lachance

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolyhedronPlanarDegree (music)MathematicsGeometryCombinatoricsComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)PhysicsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, a new family of expandable mechanisms is presented. The proposed mechanisms are expandable polyhedra built using one-degree-of-freedom (one-DOF) planar linkages. The latter planar linkages have the shape of polygons and can be expanded while preserving their shape in any of their configurations. The planar mechanisms are used to form the faces of a polyhedron. They are assembled using spherical joints at the vertices of the polyhedron. The result is a one-DOF movable polyhedron which can be expanded while preserving its shape. The application of the principle on regular polyhedra is first presented. For the five Platonic solids, theoretical maximum expansion ratios are computed, simulation results are given, and two prototypes are shown. Then, two additional examples are provided to illustrate the application of the principle to irregular polyhedra.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations55
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering ScienceSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207