Folding photopolymerized origami sheets by post-curing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents a novel manufacturing approach to fabricate origami based on 3D printing utilizing digital light processing. Specifically, we propose to leave part of the model uncured during the printing step, and then cure it in the post-processing step to set the shape in a folded configuration. While the cured regions in the first step try to regain their unfolded shape, the regions cured in the second step attempt to keep their folded shape. As a result, the final shape is obtained when both regions' stresses reach equilibrium. Finite element analysis is performed in ANSYS to obtain the stress distribution on common hinge designs, demonstrating that the square-hinge has a lower maximum principal stress than elliptical and triangle hinges. Based on the square-hinge and rectangular cavity, two variables-the hinge width and the cavity height-are selected as principal variables to construct an empirical model with the final folding angle. In the end, experimental verification shows that the developed method is valid and reliable to realize the proposed deformation and 3D development of 2D hinges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".