MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123879568 · doi:10.1115/1.4024734

Reconfiguration Analysis of a Fully Reconfigurable Parallel Robot

2013· article· en· W2123879568 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

VenueJournal of Mechanisms and Robotics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl reconfigurationDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)RobotKinematicsWorkspaceRevolute jointComputer scienceParametric statisticsTask (project management)Topology (electrical circuits)Control theory (sociology)Control engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceEmbedded systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new method for the combined topological and geometric reconfiguration of a parallel robot to achieve task-based reconfiguration. Using the existing structure of a six degree-of-freedom (DOF) parallel robot, reconfiguration to limited mobility modes, a configuration with less than six degrees-of-freedom, can be achieved easily without the need to remove branches from the robot structure. Branch modules are instead, reconfigured from an unconstrained-active to a constrained-passive state by means of hybrid active/passive motors and reconfigurable universal-to-revolute joints. In doing so, the robot is capable of assuming a configuration in which the number of task-based degrees-of-freedom match the number of controllable actuators within the robot structure. The selection of branch modules for reconfiguration is independent of the limited mobility mode required and leads to multiple isomorphic configurations. A comparative study is thus needed to understand not only the implication of morphing, but also the capabilities of the reconfigured robot. For this purpose, a branch-based mobility analysis is performed and isomorphic configurations are identified. These isomorphic configurations are then compared based on their workspace and kinematic capabilities for which a parametric kinematic constraint formulation is developed. The comparative study evaluates the abilities of each configuration and is used for guidance in selecting an appropriate configuration for a particular task. The developed tools can also be used for design evaluation purposes.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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