An interactive product customization framework for freeform shapes
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish new computer-aided-design (CAD) framework to design custom product that is fabricated additive manufacturing (AM), which can produce complex three-dimensional (3D) object without additional tool or fixture. Additive manufacturing (AM) enables the fabrication of three-dimensional (3D) objects with complex shapes without additional tools and refixturing. However, it is difficult for user to use traditional computer-aided design tools to design custom products. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors presented a design system to help user design custom 3D printable products based on some reference freeform shapes. The user can define and edit styling curves on the reference model using the interactive geometric operations for styling curve. Incorporating with the reference models, these curves can be converted into 3D printable models through the fabrication interface. Findings The authors tested their system with four design applications including a hollow patterned bicycle helmet, a T-rex with skin frame structure, a face mask with Voronoi patterns and an AM-specific night dress with hollow patterns. Originality/value The executable prototype of the presented design framework used in the customization process is publicly available.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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