MétaCan
Menu
← all works

Modeling and Control of Piezo-Actuated Nanopositioning Stages: A Survey

2014· article· en· 606 citations· W2015128267 on OpenAlex· 10.1109/tase.2014.2352364

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Full frame distilled prediction

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.

Candidate categories
none
Consensus categories
none
Domain
Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
Study design
Candidate signal: Simulation or modelingConsensus signal: Simulation or modeling
Genre
Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score
0.617
Threshold uncertainty score
0.472
Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated · codex-gemma-dda1882f352a

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread
0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

Piezo-actuated stages have become more and more promising in nanopositioning applications due to the excellent advantages of the fast response time, large mechanical force, and extremely fine resolution. Modeling and control are critical to achieve objectives for high-precision motion. However, piezo-actuated stages themselves suffer from the inherent drawbacks produced by the inherent creep and hysteresis nonlinearities and vibration caused by the lightly damped resonant dynamics, which make modeling and control of such systems challenging. To address these challenges, various techniques have been reported in the literature. This paper surveys and discusses the progresses of different modeling and control approaches for piezo-actuated nanopositioning stages and highlights new opportunities for the extended studies.

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.

The record

Venue
IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering
Topic
Piezoelectric Actuators and Control
Field
Engineering
Canadian institutions
Concordia University
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Keywords
Vibration controlVibrationControl engineeringActuatorHysteresisEngineeringControl (management)Computer scienceElectronic engineeringControl theory (sociology)AcousticsPhysicsElectrical engineering
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes