MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965167541 · doi:10.1115/1.2827455

A Constrained Lagrange Formulation of Multilink Planar Flexible Manipulator

2008· article· en· W1965167541 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Vakil, Reza Fotouhi, P.N. Nikiforuk, H. Salmasi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of vibration and acoustics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJacobian matrix and determinantRevolute jointGeneralized coordinatesLagrange multiplierMathematicsNonlinear systemControl theory (sociology)Equations of motionMathematical analysisConstraint algorithmFinite element methodVibrationPlanarApplied mathematicsConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationClassical mechanicsPhysicsGeometryStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the closed-form dynamic equations of planar flexible link manipulators (FLMs), with revolute joints and constant cross sections, are derived combining Lagrange’s equations and the assumed mode shape method. To overcome the lengthy and complicated derivative calculation of the Lagrangian function of a FLM, these computations are done only once for a single flexible link manipulator with a moving base (SFLMB). Employing the Lagrange multipliers and the dynamic equations of the SFLMB, the equations of motion of the FLM are derived in terms of the dependent generalized coordinates. To obtain the closed-form dynamic equations of the FLM in terms of the independent generalized coordinates, the natural orthogonal complement of the Jacobian constraint matrix, which is associated with the velocity constraints in the linear homogeneous form, is used. To verify the proposed closed-form dynamic model, the simulation results obtained from the model were compared with the results of the full nonlinear finite element analysis. These comparisons showed sound agreement. One of the main advantages of this approach is that the derived dynamic model can be used for the model based end-effector control and the vibration suppression of planar FLMs.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of vibration and acousticsSame topicDynamics and Control of Mechanical SystemsFrench-language works237,207