EFFECTS OF CONSTRAINTS ON STANDING BALANCE CONTROL OF A BIPED WITH TOE-JOINTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constraints between biped foot-links and the ground have significant effects on bipedal motion planning and control. In this paper, such effects on balancing control of a standing biped moving in the sagittal plane are investigated. The biped consists of two parts: an inverted pendulum representing the legs and the upper body, and a foot having a toe-link and a heel-link. The biped is regulated by two torques at the ankle-joint and the toe-joint to maintain the upper body at the upright position and the foot-links being stationary on the ground. Three constraints namely no lifting, no slipping and no rolling over about either the toe or the heel are considered. The satisfaction of the constraints imposes bounds to the control torques, which are crucial to design a control law and predict the type of falls if the constraints are violated. The control bounds caused by each individual constraint are calculated and the interaction between the constraints is also investigated. During the investigation of the control bounds, critical angular velocities are calculated above which the constraints are violated regardless of the control torques. The importance of the toe-joint torque in preventing rolling-over and effect of the toe-link length on standing balance control are also discussed in this work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".