MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995602033 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2006.277740

Virtual Prototyping for Conceptual Design of a Tracked Mobile Robot

2006· article· en· W1995602033 on OpenAlexaff
Sadath Malik, Jun Lin, A.A. Goldenberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModeling and Simulation Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual prototypingRobotMobile robotComputer scienceConceptual designTerrainProcess (computing)SimulationSoftwareHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile robots equipped with manipulator arms are often required to operate on rough and uneven terrains. During the design stage, the designer needs to verify the robots performance on various test terrains. Physical prototyping although is more desirable, may prove to be expensive and time consuming. Virtual prototyping can be used especially in the conceptual design stage in order to significantly reduce the amount of physical testing that is required. This paper discusses the application of virtual prototyping using ADAMS software for tracked mobile robots. The virtual prototype was created for an existing robot and was validated with tests done on the physical robot. Different types of virtual terrains were created and dynamic simulations of the robot were performed on these terrains. The simulation results helped in many ways including visualization of the robot motion on different terrains and in determining the limiting dimensions of obstacles, stairs, ditches, etc., that the robot can safely negotiate. The described process can be applied to new robot designs, while still in their conceptual design stage

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModeling and Simulation SystemsFrench-language works237,207