MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033607526 · doi:10.1145/3386569.3392430

Quad-mesh based isometric mappings and developable surfaces

2020· article· en· W3033607526 on OpenAlexaff
Caigui Jiang, Cheng Wang, Florian Rist, Johannes Wallner, Helmut Pottmann

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsDevelopable surfacePolygon meshDiscretizationConformal mapMathematicsIsometric exerciseComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)Topology (electrical circuits)GeometrySurface (topology)Mathematical analysisCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discretize isometric mappings between surfaces as correspondences between checkerboard patterns derived from quad meshes. This method captures the degrees of freedom inherent in smooth isometries and enables a natural definition of discrete developable surfaces. This definition, which is remarkably simple, leads to a class of discrete developables which is much more flexible in applications than previous concepts of discrete developables. In this paper, we employ optimization to efficiently compute isometric mappings, conformal mappings and isometric bending of surfaces. We perform geometric modeling of developables, including cutting, gluing and folding. The discrete mappings presented here have applications in both theory and practice: We propose a theory of curvatures derived from a discrete Gauss map as well as a construction of watertight CAD models consisting of developable spline surfaces.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207