MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134543674 · doi:10.4230/lipics.stacs.2013.269

Algorithms for Designing Pop-Up Cards

2013· article· en· W2134543674 on OpenAlexafffund
Zachary Abel, Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, Sarah Eisenstat, Anna Lubiw, André Schulz, Diane L. Souvaine, Giovanni Viglietta, Andrew Winslow

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDivision of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport SystemsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftDivision of Emerging Frontiers in Research and InnovationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)PolyhedronSimple polygonClosing (real estate)Computer scienceSimple (philosophy)CombinatoricsLinkage (software)MathematicsAlgorithmComputer graphics (images)Regular polygonGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove that every simple polygon can be made as a (2D) pop-up card/book that opens to any desired angle between 0 and 360°. More precisely, given a simple polygon attached to the two walls of the open pop-up, our polynomial-time algorithm subdivides the polygon into a single-degree-of-freedom linkage structure, such that closing the pop-up flattens the linkage without collision. This result solves an open problem of Hara and Sugihara from 2009. We also show how to obtain a more efficient construction for the special case of orthogonal polygons, and how to make 3D orthogonal polyhedra, from pop-ups that open to 90°, 180°, 270°, or 360°.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207