MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023572961 · doi:10.1063/1.2982238

On the dynamics of piezoactuated positioning systems

2008· article· en· W2023572961 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

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

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPiezoelectric Actuators and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApproximation errorComputer scienceApproximation theoryActuatorVoltageScope (computer science)Applied mathematicsPhysicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisMathematicsQuantum mechanicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piezoelectric actuators (PEAs) are commercially available for producing extremely small displacements. If a PEA is used to drive a positioning mechanism, the combined dynamics is approximated empirically by that of a second-order system. However, the rationale for such an approximation is lacking in the literature, thus leaving some issues unaddressed, such as the scope of and the error associated with the approximation. This paper presents such a rationale for the second-order approximation and a method to quantify the error associated with the approximation, by employing the assumed mode method to solve the governing equation. For the experimental verification, step voltages of 48.2, 64.2, and 75.4 V were used to excite a prototype of the positioning system with a mass ratio of 24.7, 47.7, 87.5, 115.8, and 138.8, respectively; and the measured system step responses were compared to the ones simulated by using the second-order approximation. Also, it is illustrated that the error associated with the approximation can be well characterized and quantified by using the developed method.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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