MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041335425 · doi:10.1115/detc2009-87733

A Penalty Formulation for Dynamics Analysis of Redundant Mechanical Systems

2009· article· en· W2041335425 on OpenAlexaff
Bilal Ruzzeh, Jo ́zsef Ko ̈vecses

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitational singularityRedundancy (engineering)Mechanical systemRobustness (evolution)Control theory (sociology)Computer sciencePenalty methodInverseInverse dynamicsMathematical optimizationControl engineeringMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceClassical mechanicsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Redundancy in constraining of mechanical systems achieves more stability and larger load capacity for the system, while in actuation it provides better robustness against singularities and higher maneuvrability. Few techniques have been developed to handle redundancy and singularities in dynamics analysis, yet difficulties and mathematical problems continue to manifest. This paper expands on the existing penalty techniques and incorporates the concept of actuating/passive constraints to present an elegant penalty formulation that is capable of efficiently handling singularities and redundancy in constraining and actuation and can carry out either forward or inverse dynamics analysis of mechanical systems. As such, the proposed approach is referred to as the actuating/passive constraints penalty approach, or the APCPA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDynamics and Control of Mechanical SystemsFrench-language works237,207