MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500039676 · doi:10.5772/5369

Quantitative Dexterous Workspace Comparison of Serial and Parallel Planar Mechanisms

2008· book-chapter· en· W1500039676 on OpenAlexaff
T. Geoff, Ángel A. Juan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkspacePlanarComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through either method of obtaining a constrained dimensionally homogeneous Jacobian matrix (proposed by (Gosselin, 1992) or by (Pond & Carretero, 2006)) for planar mechanisms, a choice exists on which of the potential six Cartesian velocity components on the end effector be used to define the task space velocity variables. The choice has an influence on the resulting Jacobian matrix and therefore its condition number and singular values. Without constraining the Jacobian matrix, the condition number was demonstrated to be essentially meaningless, as in (Kim & Ryu, 2003). In terms of measuring dexterity, the constrained dimensionally homogeneous Jacobian matrices (J'P) are superior to the screw based Jacobian matrix (J) in that they are dimensionally consistent. Furthermore, the six matrices (J'P) are superior to the 3 ? 6 dimensionally homogeneous matrix (J') in that they are constrained, and therefore provide true dexterous information. The condition number and singular values of each of the six matrices (J'P) are different for any given pose. Therefore, dexterity measures involving only one of the six (J'P) matrices are potentially bias. Four potential strategies for dexterity measurement have been proposed based on the condition number and/or singular values of the Jacobian matrices obtained in all six cases. Each measure has a distinct physical meaning, as discussed. In sum, the Jacobian matrix formulation presented in this chapter allows, for the first time, to quantitatively compare different mechanism architectures with complex degrees of freedom in terms of dexterity. Moreover, as illustrated in this chapter, the formulation is not limited to parallel manipulators as it can also be used to quantitatively compare the dexterity of different architectures as long as the end effector is represented by an equivalent set of points. Quantitative dexterity comparisons will allow robot designers to better select proper mechanisms for specific tasks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207