MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1891505528 · doi:10.1109/cdc.1991.261831

A digital implementation of the acceleration feedback control law on a PUMA 560 manipulator

2002· article· en· W1891505528 on OpenAlexaff
John Studenny, Pierre Bélanger, Laeeque K. Daneshmend

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)AccelerationWeightingLawComputer scienceActuatorBandwidth (computing)PID controllerControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)PhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A design procedure that shows how the acceleration feedback control law, with the frequency weighting compensator, can be implemented digitally, requiring only position data as input, is presented. The design procedure was applied to the shoulder joint of a PUMA 560 manipulator. It was demonstrated that the major limitations on the performance of this control law are due to the design of the robot itself. These limitations arise from friction in the mechanical transmission, structural resonances, and low actuator saturation thresholds in the PUMA 560. It is shown that the acceleration feedback control law can achieve improvement in tracking while using a slightly less energetic control action, in comparison to a similarly tuned proportional plus derivative controller. Tuning of the modified acceleration feedback control law entails selecting the appropriate saturation limits for clipping the numerical differentiators. High frequency uncertainty constrains how high these saturation limits may be set.>

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207