MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1825309244 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3983

A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR RECONFIGURABLE ROBOTS

2011· article· en· W1825309244 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Farhad Aghili

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReconfigurabilityRobotActuatorModular designKinematicsMechanism (biology)BrakeMechanism designConceptual designControl engineeringComputer scienceSelf-reconfiguring modular robotEngineeringRobot controlSimulationMobile robotMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents a new paradigm and conceptual design for reconfigurable robots. Unlike conventional reconfigurable robots, our design doesn't achieve reconfigurability by utilizing modular joints. But the robot is equipped with passive joints, i.e. joints with no actuator or sensor, which permit changing the Denavit-Hartenberg (DV) parameters such as the arm length, and the twist angle. The passive joints are controllable when the robot forms a closed kinematic chain. Also each passive joint is equipped with a built-in brake mechanism which is normally locked but it can be released whenever changing of the parameters is required. Kinematics analysis of such a robot plus control synthesis and mechanical design of the brake mechanism are described.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.169 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207