MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543981692 · doi:10.4271/2000-01-3565

Motorcycle-Rider Servomechanism Steering Theory

2000· article· en· W1543981692 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanics and Biomechanics Studies
Canadian institutionsCégep de Lévis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServomechanismComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringAutomotive engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">The known “countersteering” theory on how a motorcycle (or bicycle) is steered, fails to explain the sudden steering precision and smoothness gained as soon as the hands are put on the handlebar. We have derived an enhancement to this known countersteering theory that includes servomechanism concepts. The new servomechanism steering theory gives calculated stable speeds that correlate with testing. It explains the steering difference observed with and without hands on the handlebar. It predicts leaning angles in steady state curves that also correlate with testing. It explains how a single track test vehicle can be stable and can be steered with hands on the handlebar, even though it has zero fork angle, zero front trail and skates instead of wheels to have zero gyroscopic forces and zero power. Based on this servomechanism theory, a technique is suggested to develop enhanced motorcycle riding skills. Finally, this servomechanism theory is used to explain how added driving mechanisms can be developed to enhance stability and steering of a motorcycle equipped with roll cage, back rest and seat belts.</div>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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