MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090483981 · doi:10.1115/dscc2011-6147

Experimental Study on Passive Dynamic Bipedal Walking: Comparing Test Platforms and Effects of Parameter Changes on Gait Patterns

2011· article· en· W2090483981 on OpenAlexaff
Kazi Rushdi, Derek Koop, Christine Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaitTreadmillPower walkingSimulationGait analysisComputer sciencePreferred walking speedPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Passive dynamic walking is a gait developed, partially or in whole, by the energy provided by gravity. An improved kneed bipedal walking mechanism was designed and built to study passive gait patterns. The first aim of this study is to determine if testing a passive dynamic biped walker on a ramp is equivalent to testing on a treadmill. Based on the small difference between the gait patterns measured on the two test platforms, testing on a treadmill is equivalent to testing on a ramp. Measurement of the gait parameters were then conducted on the treadmill to evaluate the effects of the treadmill angle of inclination, mass distribution of the biped, treadmill belt speed and length of flat feet. Our experimental results are presented and compared with previous experimental and simulation results. Research on passive dynamic bipedal walking helps to develop an understanding of walking mechanics. Moreover, experimental passive dynamic walking results provide information to validate mathematical models of passive dynamic walking.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207