MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1635212201 · doi:10.1063/1.3106485

Extremum Seeking Tuning for Reel Tension Control in Haptic Application

2009· article· en· W1635212201 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtremum Seeking Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Haptic technologyWrenchTorqueActuatorComputer scienceOptimal controlPulleyTransparency (behavior)Control engineeringSimulationEngineeringControl (management)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal tension control in parallel mechanisms for balancing wrench at the end‐effector introduces a complex model of the overall system. Moreover, actuator saturations such as motor current and angular velocity limits impose that a non‐linear system be controlled. Such a system is usually controlled sub‐optimally due to the complexity of its model. In haptic applications where transparency and stability are both critical parameters, optimal performance should be achieved. This paper introduces an enhanced FPID auto‐tuning based on Extremum Seeking‐Tuning (ES‐Tuning) which uses a different cost function to find the local optimal solution for haptic rendering and a correction on noise measurement for a high order complex system. The solution of this optimization gives a direct measure of the reel dynamic transparency evaluated by the proposed cost function.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.209 · 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