EFFECTS OF CONSTRAINTS ON BIPEDAL BALANCE CONTROL DURING STANDING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, the effects of the gravity constraint, friction constraint, center of pressure (COP) constraint, and tip-over constraint on balance control of a simplified two-dimensional biped during standing are investigated. The bounds imposed on the control torque due to the constraints are first determined. Such control bounds have significant effects on designing balance control laws and can be used to predict the type of falls if the constraint is violated. It is found that there exists a critical angular velocity, above which, regardless of the control torque, the constraints will be violated. It is also found that the gravity constraint is the least important since it is always satisfied when the friction constraint is satisfied. For the biped under study, the friction constraint determines the critical angular velocity in most of the region around the upright position, while the COP constraint dictates the bounds of the control torque. Since the tip-over constraint is equivalent to the COP constraint as both feet are on the same level ground, it is concluded that the tip-over constraint is the most important when the magnitude of the angular velocity is below the critical value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".