MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DESIGN FOR HIGH DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE ROBOT BASED ON DYNAMICALLY COUPLED DRIVING AND JOINT STOPS

2007· article· en· W2095547391 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chao Xu, Aiguo Ming, K. L. Mak, M. Shimojo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Robotics and Automation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorqueRobotActuatorProcess (computing)Computer scienceSwingJoint (building)Control theory (sociology)Power (physics)SimulationControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new design approach is proposed for high dynamic performance robots, such as robots performing high-speed dynamic motions. This method is based on the utilization of dynamically coupled driving and joint stops. In the method, the dynamic performance index (DPI) formulated by the desired maximum motion specifications and the boundary conditions on initial/final configurations are combined to form a design index (DI) first. Then a dexterous mechanism consisting of very light actuators and links is initially designed under an assumption of utilizing dynamically coupled driving and joint stops. By increasing the load capabilities of the actuators step by step, an iterative process of searching for the solution of DI=0 with minimal torque needs is implemented to validate and improve the initial design. This process yields a robot that is lighter than conventional robots and capable of performing dynamic motions more efficiently by utilizing dynamically coupled driving and joint stops. Based on the method, a two-link golf swing robot performing high-speed swings is designed. Simulation results indicate the method can reduce the needs for the torque and power as compared with conventional design methods. The experiment clearly illustrates the merits of the method.

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 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 score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Robotics and AutomationSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207