MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979491658 · doi:10.1017/s0263574702004423

Effect of base compliance on the dynamic stability of mobile manipulators

2002· article· en· W1979491658 on OpenAlexaff
R. F. Abo-Shanab, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcavatorBase (topology)Stability (learning theory)Flexibility (engineering)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper extends the model developed previously by the authors, 1 for studying dynamic stability of mobile manipulators. The extended model not only takes into account the dynamics of the base that can potentially rock back-and-forth, but also accounts for the flexibility of the contact between the base and the ground. A novel method of virtual links is used to reformulate the problem of modeling the non-fixed base manipulator in terms of a fixed-base manipulator with one degree of freedom joints. The resulting model is then used to simulate planar movements of a Caterpillar excavator-based log-loader. The results clearly demonstrate the relationship between movement of the implement and the stability of the machine. The flexible contact between the base and the ground is also shown to influence the stability. The results are also compared with those obtained by the previous model, which assumed rigid contact between the base and the ground. It is demonstrated that the assumption of rigid contact tends to overestimate the stability. Consequently, flexibility in the contact bet- ween the base and the ground must be considered to more accurately predict the stability of mobile manipulators.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoboticaSame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207