MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014916693 · doi:10.1115/imece2006-14525

Optimum Connection Positions for the Redundant Limb in Cable-Based Parallel Manipulators

2006· article· en· W2014916693 on OpenAlexaff
Mahir Hassan, Amir Khajepour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnection (principal bundle)Position (finance)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Parallel manipulatorTension (geology)Bounded functionEngineeringMathematicsStructural engineeringUltimate tensile strengthRobotArtificial intelligenceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cable-based Parallel Manipulators (CPM) are light-weight manipulators that can reach high accelerations. The difference between the design of CPM and that of rigid-link parallel manipulators is due to the fact that cables can only perform while under tension. Keeping the cables under tension can be achieved by applying a force to the mobile platform by a redundant limb (e.g., cable, spring, or a cylinder) to generate tensile forces in the cables. In this study, an optimization procedure is developed to determine the optimum direction and connection position for the redundant limb. The optimum solution is that at which the difference between the largest and smallest tensions generated in the cables is minimized. The optimization procedure is based on a bounded-search algorithm that minimizes an objective function that represents the difference in the cable tensions generated due to the redundantlimb force. The bounds established in this study on the search increases the speed and efficiency of the search algorithm. The optimization procedure is successfully applied to a spatial 6degree-of-freedom cable parallel manipulator for demonstration.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207