MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987963032 · doi:10.1109/robot.2010.5509986

Interaction analysis and posture optimization for a reconfigurable tracked mobile modular manipulator negotiating slopes

2010· article· en· W1987963032 on OpenAlexaff
Yugang Liu, Guangjun Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile manipulatorModular designComputer scienceTerrainTrack (disk drive)Control reconfigurationMobile robotSimulationRobotReal-time computingEngineeringArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes track-terrain and vehicle-manipulator interactions and develops posture optimization algorithms for a reconfigurable tracked mobile modular manipulator negotiating slopes. A tracked mobile robot is associated with unavoidable slippage due to the fact that there are infinite number of contact points between the tracks and the terrain. Furthermore, the reconfiguration of the tracked mobile robot, motion of the onboard manipulator, as well as the centrifugal forces give rise to transfer of load distribution, complicating track-terrain interactions. For a tracked mobile manipulator negotiating slopes, posture optimization is essential for enhancing the traction performance, improving the efficiency of power consumption and avoiding tip-over instabilities. In this paper, track-terrain and vehicle-manipulator interactions are analyzed for a reconfigurable tracked mobile modular manipulator negotiating slopes, and a real-time posture optimization algorithm is developed by online reconfiguring the tracked mobile platform or adjusting motion of the onboard manipulator. The effectiveness of the developed algorithms has been verified by simulations and experiments.

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 score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207