MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comparison of Two Control Methods for Vehicle Stability Control by Direct Yaw Moment

2011· article· en· W2059278995 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)PID controllerAutomobile handlingMoment (physics)Nonlinear systemEngineeringYawController (irrigation)Vehicle dynamicsSlip angleStability (learning theory)Electronic stability controlControl (management)Slip (aerodynamics)Control engineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringPhysicsTemperature controlArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a comparison study of two vehicle stability control methods by direct yaw-moment control (DYC): a PID and a sliding controller. For the purpose of this study, control systems are based solely on vehicle side-slip angle state feedback and the lateral dynamics of the 2 DOF vehicle model are used to establish the desired response. Close-loop dynamics of the PID controller are determined with the pole placement method, and an anti-windup strategy is adopted to respond to the tire’s nonlinear characteristics. The comparison study was performed by computer simulations with a 14 DOF nonlinear vehicle model validated with experimental data. The controllers are evaluated for typical severe manoeuvres on low friction road surfaces. It is found that despite their fundamental differences, the control methods provide comparable performances for the cases studied.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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