MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996426814 · doi:10.1115/detc2002/mech-34357

Identification of Contact Dynamics Model Parameters From Constrained Robotic Operations

2002· article· en· W1996426814 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Weber, Ou Ma, Inna Sharf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPayload (computing)Computer scienceIdentification (biology)Contact forceRobot end effectorOverdetermined systemRobotSystem identificationControl engineeringPosition (finance)Control theory (sociology)SimulationData modelingArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the fast advances in computing technology, contact dynamics simulations are playing a more important role in the design, verification, and operation support of space systems. The validity of computer simulation depends not only on the mathematical models but also on the model parameters. This paper describes a novel strategy of identifying contact dynamics parameters based on the sensor data collected from a robot performing contact tasks. Unlike existing identification algorithms, this methodology is applicable to complex contact geometries where contact between mating objects occurs at multiple surface areas in a time-variant fashion. At the same time, the procedure requires only measurements of end-effector forces and the position information for the end-effector and the environment. Similarly to other methods, the solution is formulated as a linear identification problem, which can be solved with standard numerical techniques for overdetermined systems. Efficacy, precision, and sensitivity of the identification methodology are investigated in simulation for a payload/fixture combination modeled after a real space-manipulator task.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207