MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046839475 · doi:10.1115/1.2976452

The Maximal Singularity-Free Workspace of the Gough–Stewart Platform for a Given Orientation

2008· article· en· W2046839475 on OpenAlexafffund
Qimi Jiang, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanical Design · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsWorkspaceSingularityParallel manipulatorStewart platformOrientation (vector space)Point (geometry)MathematicsRobotGeometryComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)Control theory (sociology)AlgorithmMathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceKinematicsCombinatoricsPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maximal singularity-free workspace of parallel mechanisms is a desirable criterion in robot design. However, for a 6DOF parallel mechanism, it is very difficult to find an analytic method to determine the maximal singularity-free workspace around a prescribed point for a given orientation. Hence, a numerical algorithm is presented in this paper to compute the maximal singularity-free workspace as well as the corresponding leg length ranges of the Gough–Stewart platform. This algorithm is based on the relationship between the maximal singularity-free workspace and the singularity surface. Case studies with different orientations are performed to demonstrate the presented algorithm. The obtained results can be applied to the geometric design or parameter (leg length) setup of this type of parallel robots.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations43
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanical DesignSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207