Search

In this article we present a design principle based on segmenting a structure into a set of topologically or geometrically interlocked elements. None of these designs was borrowed from Nature and yet there are some parallels between these structures born in the minds of researchers and Nature's designs. We give some historical background, describe the different kinds of interlocking structures, and discuss the ways in which they can be generated. Based on the beneficial features of the proposed structures, such as a great tolerance to local failures, enhanced bending compliance, high sound and energy absorption, ease of assembly and disassembly, and nearly full recyclability, we discuss possible applications of the concept of topological and geometrical interlocking design.

The ability to objectively assess academic performance is critical to rewarding academic merit, charting academic policy, and promoting science. Quintessential to performing these functions is first the ability to collect valid and current data through increasingly automated online interfaces. Moreover, it is crucial to remove disciplinary and other biases from these data, presenting them in ways that support insightful analysis at various levels. Existing systems are lacking in some of these respects. Here we present Scholar Plot (SP), an interface that harvests bibliographic and research funding data from online sources. SP addresses systematic biases in the collected data through nominal and normalized metrics. Eventually, SP combines synergistically these metrics in a plot form for expert appraisal, and an iconic form for broader consumption. SP's plot and iconic forms are scalable, representing equally well individual scholars and their academic units, thus contributing to consistent ranking practices across the university organizational structure. In order to appreciate the design principles underlying SP, in particular the informativeness of nominal vs. normalized metrics, we also present the results of an evaluation survey taken by senior faculty (n = 28) with significant promotion and tenure assessment experience.

In this paper, we demonstrate that interventions and stressors do not necessarily cause the same distractions in all people; therefore, it is impossible to evaluate the impacts of interventions and stressors on traffic accidents. We analyzed publicly available multimodal data that was collected through one of the largest controlled experiments on distracted driving. A crossover design was used to examine the effects of actual and perceived interventions and stressors in driving behaviors and parallel designs on reactivity to a startling event. To analyze this data and make recommendations, we developed and compared a wide variety of mixed effects statistical models and machine learning methods to evaluate the effects of interventions and stressors on driving behaviors.