Voronoi Tiling, Digital Fabric Printing and Interactive eGarments - Designing the iBody
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, fabric prints were designed using a regular tiling pattern in a design step completely separate from garment pattern design and garment construction. With the emergence and ongoing spread of digital fabric printers, these different design steps may now be combined so that fabric prints can be designed as a function of how they will appear on the final garment, and then the stages of construction decomposed to obtain the desired result. For repetitive prints, however, whether of a regular or irregular nature, there is a need to be able to dynamically modify the organisation of the tiling to ensure the most effective tile placement in the end result. In addition, this tiling must ideally be sensitive to the draping properties of the human body as well as the location of various tiles with respect to different body parts, even in a static printing solution. The use of dynamically modifiable tiling structures can facilitate this process. We explore the adaptation and use of Voronoi tilings to this problem, including the use of digital surface draping of dynamic Voronoi tiles onto a human body simulcrum. Furthermore, through the use of Augmented Reality, we propose to exploit the power of the dynamic Voronoi diagram to create changing print patterns that adjust to the movement of the body.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it