MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quick Motion Path Plan for Joint-Robot to Pick Tomato under Free-Obstacle

2012· article· en· W2090400788 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Yin, Chun Xie, Chuan Yu Wu, S.Mittal Gauri, Simon X. Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotKinematicsInverse kinematicsPath (computing)Point (geometry)Motion planningMotion (physics)ObstacleLinear motionJoint (building)Computer scienceRobotic armControl theory (sociology)EngineeringSimulationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysicsStructural engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve the efficiency of picking the fruit, a kind of quick motion path plan method for fruit-picking robot under free-obstacle was proposed in this paper. Firstly, the method obtained a series of points along straight path at equal internal, and the gripper center was designed to pass thorough these points. Inverse kinematics formulas of the robot arm were used to solve joint angles of the robot arm when the gripper center will pass thorough each point. To make the robot arm guide the gripper to reach quickly the object point, the joint angles were optimized to determinate according to the principle of energy optimization. The test of picking tomato showed that the method can both reproduce the motion of the gripper along linear points at constant speed and keep the shortest motion path, which are benefit to grip the fruit steadily. The method has a low amount of calculation, better real-time and may provide a reference for joint robot to pick the fruit quickly.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207