MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883121136 · doi:10.1145/3203207

Energized Rigid Body Fracture

2018· article· en· W2883121136 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaokai Li, Sheldon Andrews, Ben Jones, Adam W. Bargteil

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAnimationFracture mechanicsDeformation (meteorology)Computer scienceRigid bodyDisplacement (psychology)Continuum mechanicsFracture (geology)Computer animationComputer graphicsRigid body dynamicsMechanicsPotential energyKinetic energyElastic energyClassical mechanicsStructural engineeringComputer graphics (images)PhysicsEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compelling animation of fracture is a vital challenge for computer graphics. Methods based on continuum mechanics are physically accurate, but computationally expensive since they require computing elastic deformation. In many applications, this elastic deformation is imperceptible, so simulation methods based on rigid body dynamic with breakable constraints are popular in practice. Simply deleting constraints when thresholds on force or displacement are reached ignores the elastic energy that is stored just before fracture, which is captured by continuum mechanics based methods. Our approach computes the energy stored in these constraints when they are broken, and reintroduces it to the system as kinetic energy. As a result, our method is able to animate energetic fracture scenarios with results comparable to continuum mechanics approaches, but with the computational efficiency of rigid body simulation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive TechniquesSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207