MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049060453 · doi:10.1115/1.4026632

Motion/Force Constrainability Analysis of Lower-Mobility Parallel Manipulators

2014· article· en· W2049060453 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

VenueJournal of Mechanisms and Robotics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)WorkspaceScrew theoryControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceParallel manipulatorPoolingSingularityMotion (physics)MathematicsRobotArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisControl (management)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constraint performance analysis in the limited kinetostatic subspace of parallel manipulators is a significant but ignored issue. The motion/force constrainability analysis, with focus on lower-mobility parallel manipulators, is the subject of this study. Via the theory of screws, three generalized frame-invariant constraint indices are proposed based on the concept of the power coefficient. The introduced indices can not only identify the singularity and the fully constrained property but also measure the closeness between a particular pose and an unconstrained configuration (or fully constrained configuration). In order to demonstrate the feasibility and the validity of the analysis methods and indices, the detailed evaluation of two typical industrial parallel manipulators are presented, the Sprint Z3 head and the Tricept mechanism.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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