MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995675945 · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56118-2

Encoding kirigami bi-materials to morph on target in response to temperature

2019· article· en· W2995675945 on OpenAlexafffund
Lu Liu, Chuan Qiao, Haichao An, Damiano Pasini

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Materials and Mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceComputational biologyEncoding (memory)BioinformaticsBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shape morphing in response to an environmental stimulus, such as temperature, light, and chemical cues, is currently pursued in synthetic analogs for manifold applications in engineering, architecture, and beyond. Existing strategies mostly resort to active, namely smart or field responsive, materials, which undergo a change of their physical properties when subjected to an external stimulus. Their ability for shape morphing is intrinsic to the atomic/molecular structure as well as the mechanochemical interactions of their constituents. Programming shape changes with active materials require manipulation of their composition through chemical synthesis. Here, we demonstrate that a pair of off-the-shelf passive solids, such as wood and silicone rubber, can be topologically arranged in a kirigami bi-material to shape-morph on target in response to a temperature stimulus. A coherent framework is introduced to enable the optimal orchestration of bi-material units that can engage temperature to collectively deploy into a geometrically rich set of periodic and aperiodic shapes that can shape-match a predefined target. The results highlight reversible morphing by mechanics and geometry, thus contributing to relax the dependence of current strategies on material chemistry and fabrication.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAdvanced Materials and MechanicsFrench-language works237,207