MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011360287 · doi:10.1088/1748-3182/7/4/046008

Local reflexive mechanisms essential for snakes' scaffold-based locomotion

2012· article· en· W2011360287 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Takeshi Kano, Takahide Sato, Ryo Kobayashi, Akio Ishiguro

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinspiration & Biomimetics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNarodowe Centrum NaukiInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstGovernment of Canada
KeywordsRobotRobot locomotionComputer scienceExploitTerrainWork (physics)BipedalismHuman–computer interactionSimulationArtificial intelligenceMobile robotEngineeringEcologyBiologyRobot controlAnatomyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most robots are designed to work in predefined environments, and irregularities that exist in the environment interfere with their operation. For snakes, irregularities play the opposite role: snakes actively utilize terrain irregularities and move by effectively pushing their body against the scaffolds that they encounter. Autonomous decentralized control mechanisms could be the key to understanding this locomotion. We demonstrate through modelling and simulations that only two local reflexive mechanisms, which exploit sensory information about the stretching of muscles and the pressure on the body wall, are crucial for realizing locomotion. This finding will help develop robots that work in undefined environments and shed light on the understanding of the fundamental principles underlying adaptive locomotion in animals.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinspiration & BiomimeticsSame topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207