MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126268930 · doi:10.1109/tra.2003.820853

Type synthesis of 3T1R 4-DOF parallel manipulators based on screw theory

2004· article· en· W2126268930 on OpenAlexaff
Xianwen Kong, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrew theoryWrenchSCARAKinematicsParallel manipulatorRotation (mathematics)Type (biology)Topology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Motion (physics)MathematicsRobotArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringClassical mechanicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3T1R four-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) parallel manipulators (3T1R-PMs) are the parallel counterparts of the 4-DOF SCARA serial robots. In a 3T1R-PM, the moving platform can generate 3T1R motion (also called Schonflies motion), which refers to a rotation about any axis with a given direction in conjunction with 3-DOF translations. A method is proposed for the type synthesis of 3T1R-PMs based on screw theory. The wrench systems of a 3T1R parallel kinematic chain (3T1R-PKC) and its legs are first analyzed. A general procedure is then proposed for the type synthesis of 3T1R-PMs. The type synthesis of legs for 3T1R-PKCs, the type synthesis of 3T1R-PKCs, as well as the selection of actuated joints of 3T1R-PMs, are dealt with in sequence. 3T1R-PKCs with and without inactive joints are synthesized. The phenomenon of dependent joint groups in a 3T1R-PKC is revealed for the first time. Several 3T1R-PMs with identical type of legs are obtained.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
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

Citations262
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Robotics and AutomationSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207