MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003883461 · doi:10.1115/omae2007-29153

Detecting Tether Self-Collisions in Tethered ROV Simulations

2007· article· en· W2003883461 on OpenAlexaff
André Roy, Juan A. Carretero, Bradley J. Buckham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemotely operated underwater vehicleCollisionMarine engineeringSeparation (statistics)Computer scienceUnderwaterWork (physics)Collision avoidanceTrajectorySimulationScheme (mathematics)Power (physics)Contact forceVehicle dynamicsRemotely operated vehicleAerospace engineeringControl theory (sociology)RobotMobile robotEngineeringPhysicsControl (management)Mechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, the only viable means of providing power and maintaining human control during underwater ROV operation is through the vehicle’s tether. Due to the high cost of ROVs and their tethers as well as potential risks to equipment and personnel, a realistic simulator is needed to train their pilots. To accurately simulate the tether, it is important to detect collisions of the tether with the environment and with itself as well as to calculate the forces involved. The aim of this work is to present a computationally efficient and accurate method of detecting tether self-contact. To this end, a combinatorial global optimisation method is first used to determine the approximate separation distances. Then, a local optimisation scheme is used to find the exact separation distance and the location of the closest points. This information can then be used to determine whether or not a collision has occurred. If a collision is detected, a force is applied at the collision site to maintain separation.

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 score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDynamics and Control of Mechanical SystemsFrench-language works237,207