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
Most additive manufacturing processes fabricate objects by stacking planar layers of solidified material. As a result, produced parts exhibit a so-called staircase effect, which results from sampling slanted surfaces with parallel planes. Using thinner slices reduces this effect, but it always remains visible where layers almost align with the input surfaces. In this research we exploit the ability of some additive manufacturing processes to deposit material slightly out of plane to dramatically reduce these artifacts. We focus in particular on the widespread Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) technology, since most printers in this category can deposit along slightly curved paths, under deposition slope and thickness constraints. Our algorithm curves the layers, making them either follow the natural slope of the input surface or on the contrary, make them intersect the surfaces at a steeper angle thereby improving the sampling quality. Rather than directly computing curved layers, our algorithm optimizes for a deformation of the model which is then sliced with a standard planar approach. We demonstrate that this approach enables us to encode all fabrication constraints, including the guarantee of generating collision-free toolpaths, in a convex optimization that can be solved using a QP solver. We produce a variety of models and compare print quality between curved deposition and planar slicing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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