MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582318353

Kinematics and force analysis of a 6 degrees of freedom 3-UPS mechanism with triangular platform for haptic applications

2012· article· en· W1582318353 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Khodabakhsh, Mehdi Sadeghpour, Soroosh Hassanpour, Gholamreza Vossoughi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Control, Automation and Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual workWorkspaceMechanism (biology)KinematicsJacobian matrix and determinantControl theory (sociology)TorqueActuatorHaptic technologyInverse dynamicsInverse kinematicsSingularityWork (physics)Computer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringSimulationMathematicsClassical mechanicsPhysicsGeometryRobotFinite element methodArtificial intelligenceStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents inverse dynamics equations for a 3-UPS mechanism using virtual work principle. This mechanism has three UPS legs connecting the base to a triangular platform. By changing the orientation of leg's actuators a non-symmetric mechanism with a suitable workspace near the origin without any singularity is obtained. Direct and inverse kinematics Jacobian matrices of the mechanism are obtained by the Newton-Euler approach. Then the inverse dynamics problem is solved using the principle of virtual work, so that the force and torque of active actuators have been obtained by having external forces (force and torque) acted on the platform. Force analysis of the 3-UPS mechanism has been done in the whole workspace without any singularity. Studying several situations of the platform shows that the ranges of the magnitudes of the forces and torques of the active actuators in this mechanism are reasonable, and typical actuators can support them.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Control, Automation and SystemsSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207