MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924347223 · doi:10.1002/cae.21656

Build‐A‐Robot: Using virtual reality to visualize the Denavit–Hartenberg parameters

2015· article· en· W1924347223 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Megan Flanders, R.C. Kavanagh

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Applications in Engineering Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechatronics Education and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIrish Research Council
KeywordsVRMLComputer scienceVirtual realityAnimationToolboxRobotMATLABHuman–computer interactionAvatarRoboticsArtificial intelligenceForward kinematicsComputer animationSimulationComputer graphics (images)Inverse kinematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Virtual reality‐based educational tools allow students to visualize and interact with three‐dimensional objects in ways that cannot be achieved using traditional teaching methods. This type of educational tool is especially relevant to mechanically‐complex courses, such as those pertaining to robotics and mechatronics. Build‐A‐Robot is such a tool, created using the Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML), MATLAB, and the Simulink 3D Animation Toolbox, to study the forward kinematics of serial robot arms according to the Denavit–Hartenberg convention. This tool is described, and the power of using MATLAB to directly manipulate VRML geometric dimensions is explored. The potential of this tool is evidenced by student survey responses and examination results. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Comput Appl Eng Educ 23:846–853, 2015; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cae ; DOI 10.1002/cae.21656

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Applications in Engineering EducationSame topicMechatronics Education and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207