MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993816772 · doi:10.1115/1.4025297

The Synthesis of Spherical Motion Generators in the Presence of an Incomplete Set of Attitudes

2013· article· en· W1993816772 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Al-Widyan, Jorge Angeles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanisms and Robotics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Linkage (software)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Motion (physics)Context (archaeology)MathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proposed in this paper is a general methodology applicable to the synthesis of spherical motion generators in the presence of an incomplete set of finitely separated attitudes. The spherical rigid-body guidance problem in the realm of four-bar linkage synthesis can be solved exactly for up to five prescribed attitudes of the coupler link, and hence, any number of attitudes smaller than five is considered incomplete in this paper. The attitudes completing the set are determined to produce a linkage whose performance is robust against variations in the unprescribed attitudes. Robustness is needed in this context to overcome the presence of uncertainty due to the selection of the unspecified attitudes, that many a time are specified implicitly by the designer upon choosing, for example, the location of the fixed joints of the dyads. A theoretical framework for model-based robust engineering design is thus, recalled, and a methodology for the robust synthesis of spherical four-bar linkages is laid down. An example is included here to concretize the concepts and illustrate the application of the proposed methodology.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanisms and RoboticsSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207