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

Motorcycle-Rider Servomechanism Steering Theory

2000· article· en· W1543981692 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre M. Ethier

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicMechanics and Biomechanics StudiesFrench-language works237,207