The optimum dimensioning of an underwater manipulator for weld inspection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimum dimensioning of an underwater inspection manipulator is discussed in this paper. The inspection of a weld seam using an alternating current field measurement (ACFM) probe was identified as a five-dimensional Cartesian task. Due to the forward positioning of the required workspace, this manipulator requires two additional axes to locate its base with respect to the weld seam. This leads to a seven-axis manipulator, comprising a two-axis launching stage and a five-axis dexterous inspection stage. The optimization of the architecture of the latter five-axis inspection manipulator is the subject of this paper. In optimizing the architecture, various postures of the manipulator during the inspection process were considered, which thus allows identification of the limiting values of the joint angles for maximum dexterity. The optimum link lengths to ensure the highest dexterity were then determined from the results of the analysis. It is shown that the weld seam diameter and the manipulator condition number can be used as the deciding parameters for determining the relative link lengths of the five-axis inspection stage of the manipulator.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".