MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123138877 · doi:10.1109/tmech.2006.871091

Motion control of a novel planar biped with nearly linear dynamics

2006· article· en· W2123138877 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sunil K. Agrawal, A. Fattah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)InertiaRevolute jointNonlinear systemTrajectoryCenter of mass (relativistic)Controller (irrigation)Sylvester's law of inertiaComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsClassical mechanicsControl (management)Robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose the design of a planar biped for which the model is nearly linear, i.e., the inertia matrix is a constant and the gravity terms in the equations of motion are still nonlinear, but simplified. The legs are designed such that the inertia matrix is independent of the joint variables. As a result, the nonlinear terms in the centrifugal and Coriolis terms disappear. In this design, each leg has two links that are connected by a revolute joint at the knee. The two legs are connected to each other at the hip. The center of mass of each leg is located at the hip, using counterweights. We assume that the stance leg is locked at the knee during the support phase. For this system, dynamic model for complete walking, i.e., swing phase, knee lock, and foot impact are considered. Motion control for trajectory following of this design is studied using a nonlinear controller. The paper discusses the issue of tracking of desired trajectories during the full cycle motion.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ASME Transactions on MechatronicsSame topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207