MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560066527 · doi:10.1115/detc2016-60099

An Offsetting Framework of Triangular Models for 3D Printing

2016· article· en· W2560066527 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaotong Jiang, Qingjin Peng, Xiaosheng Cheng, Ning Dai, Yu Xiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Offset (computer science)Partition (number theory)Signed distance functionComputer scienceSolid modelingLeverage (statistics)AlgorithmPolygon meshSurface (topology)Topology (electrical circuits)MathematicsGeometryCombinatoricsComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An efficient and intersection-free model offsetting framework is introduced in this paper to generate shell models for 3D printing. The basic concept of the framework is to offset vertices of the input mesh to obtain an approximate discrete signed distance field for reconstructing the offsetting mesh. The framework first offsets vertices of the mesh by a given distance along their normal directly. These vertices are then adjusted or discarded according to the given offsetting distance to form an approximate discrete signed distance field using a binary space partition (BSP) tree. These reserved vertices are finally reconstructed using Poisson reconstruction algorithms to form the inner surface of the shell model. Results of the framework are intersection and non-manifold free for an arbitrary distance. It also allows different parts of a model for different offsetting distances from user interactions. Several examples are given to demonstrate that the framework is effective and robust for 3D printing.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207