MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102243952 · doi:10.1109/cca.2005.1507276

Effects of gravity and friction constraints on bipedal balance control

2005· article· en· W2102243952 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)TorqueControl theory (sociology)Angular velocityPosition (finance)Work (physics)Balance (ability)Control (management)MathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceClassical mechanicsGeometryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The satisfaction of constraints between the foot and the ground during balancing of bipedal standing is important. In this work, the effects of two constraints, namely the gravity constraint and the friction constraint, on balancing of a simplified two-dimensional biped are considered. The bounds imposed on the control torque are first determined analytically. Such results not only show the specific constraint causing the control bounds, but also indicate the possible violation of the individual constraint. It is also found that the angular velocity plays a crucial role in satisfying the constraints. More importantly, it is found that in a region around the upright position within the critical angles, if the angular velocity is above the critical one, regardless of the control torque, the constraints cannot be satisfied. Another interesting finding is that between the gravity constraint and the friction constraint, the friction constraint is more dominant, thus should be considered carefully

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207