“…Thirdly, in the context of the non-Euclidean energy (1.10), it has been shown in [7] that the scaling: inf 1 h E(·, Ω h ) ∼ h 2 only occurs when the metric G 2×2 on the mid-plate U can be isometrically immersed in R 3 with the regularity W 2,2 and when, at the same time, the three appropriate Riemann curvatures of G do not vanish identically; the relevant residual theory, obtained through Γ-convergence, yielded then a Kirchhoff-like residual energy. Further, in [33] the authors proved that the only outstanding nontrivial residual theory is a von Kàrmànlike energy, valid when: inf 1 h E(·, Ω h ) ∼ h 4 . This scale separation, contrary to [13,32], is due to the fact that while the magnitude of external forces is adjustable at will, it seems not to be the case for the interior mechanism of a given metric G which does not depend on h. In fact, it is the curvature tensor of G which induces the nontrivial stresses in the thin film and it has only six independent components, namely the six sectional curvatures created out of the three principal directions, which further fall into two categories: including or excluding the thin direction variable.…”