Actuation Arrangement of Rigid Foldable Waterbomb Origami
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A novel approach is proposed to arrange the actuations of rigid foldable waterbomb origami with multiple facet loops such that the number of actuations equaled the degrees-of-freedom (DOF) of the origami. In this approach, the rigid waterbomb origami was regarded as a combination of three types of six-crease origami units, which is equivalent to spherical 6R mechanisms with three DOF. Then, clear, target, and arrangement parts were created to define the facets of the origami pattern in the proposed extrapolation method. The actuation arrangement for a waterbomb origami pattern, which extended outwards circumferentially from a six-crease origami unit, was completed, and adams software was used to verify the correctness of the arrangement. Finally, an intuitive mathematical method was used to arrange the actuations for this type of waterbomb origami. The proposed approach provided DOF for the rigid foldable waterbomb origami and facilitated an actuation design such that the origami exhibits unique motion and can be normally actuated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".