MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416322489 · doi:10.1115/1.4070430

A Curvature-Tunable Deployable Origami Boom With Facet-Integrated Self-Locking Mechanism

2025· article· en· W4416322489 on OpenAlexaff
So-Jeong Park, Sangjune Laurence Lee, Gwang-Pil Jung, Dae‐Young Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Materials and Mechanics
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsBoomRigidity (electromagnetism)StiffnessCurvatureMechanism (biology)Variety (cybernetics)Ranging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent advances in technology have expanded the space industry, but there are still volume limitations on carriers, which translates directly into cost. Deployable structures can overcome these limitations and are used especially in space in a variety of ways. In this article, this study proposes a curvature-adjustable origami boom incorporating a plane-induced based self-locking mechanism. The Kirigami locker, which deploys with the pattern and is self-locking, can increase rigidity while minimizing the increase in storage volume. By utilizing the characteristics of the Miura pattern, the results show a difference in compressive and bending stiffness of up to 6.29 and 3.5 times, respectively, with and without the locking segment. In addition, the curvature can be freely designed through pattern variation, and booms with multiple curvatures can be produced. This enables the design of a variety of highly rigid and deployable structures, ranging from small sizes such as tables to large structures, including shelters and masts, which can be deployed with few degrees-of-freedom.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.001

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanical DesignSame topicAdvanced Materials and MechanicsFrench-language works237,207