{"id":"W2105971748","doi":"10.1109/robot.2006.1642347","title":"Kinematic and static analysis of a planar modular 2-DoF tensegrity mechanism","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"","topic":"Structural Analysis and Optimization","field":"Engineering","cited_by":20,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Université Laval","funders":"","keywords":"Tensegrity; Statics; Modular design; Kinematics; Workspace; Mechanism (biology); Computer science; Planar; Flexibility (engineering); Static analysis; Structural engineering; Mechanism design; Robot; Topology (electrical circuits); Engineering; Physics; Mathematics; Artificial intelligence","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002008294,0.0004421582,0.0003901493,0.0006218036,0.00016704,0.0002468433,0.0003863933,0.0004627425,0.003072915],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0003669355,0.0002374939,0.0005255525,0.0002939249,0.0004555354,0.0002255673,0.0003282083,0.0001396246,0.0003047957],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001782195,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002767842,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008355981,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0005007908,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9999093,0.00001267397,0.000003726066,0.00001852127,0.00003906629,0.00001670989],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9998947,0.00002155247,0.00004468002,0.00001462727,0.00001749446,0.000006832693],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_gemma":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001756694,0.00002539686,0.001728142,0.0001030452,0.00005264039,0.0008027524,0.0001035244,0.8243021,0.1312442,0.01600217,0.0002429012,0.02521731],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004230554,0.0003503403,0.005155018,0.00001844273,0.00003265093,0.0003429235,0.0000620584,0.9810179,0.008750503,0.002461358,0.001729109,0.00003728754],"study_design_candidate":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_consensus":"simulation_or_modeling","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5824777,0.0002919095,0.4070187,0.00007497385,0.00002221362,0.0000489247,0.0001499839,0.0003648531,0.009550728],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9883542,0.0001020247,0.00913902,0.000006749994,0.000005461201,0.00003374363,0.00004373089,0.000008749014,0.002306373],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.003072915,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.01027995,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.00322243873049325,"score_gpt":0.1649211603127447,"score_spread":0.1616987215822515,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}