MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128889464 · doi:10.1177/0278364908092466

Self-Motions of General 3- <i> <u>R</u> PR </i> Planar Parallel Robots

2008· article· en· W2128889464 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Briot, Vigen Arakelian, Ilian A. Bonev, Damien Chablat, Philippe Wenger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Robotics Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSCARAKinematicsWorkspaceParallel manipulatorSingularityInverse kinematicsGravitational singularityRobotPlanarDegeneracy (biology)Robot kinematicsComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)MathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)GeometryArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisPhysicsClassical mechanicsMobile robotCombinatoricsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the kinematic geometry of general 3-RPR planar parallel robots with actuated base joints. These robots, while largely overlooked, have simple direct kinematics and large singularity-free workspace. Furthermore, their kinematic geometry is the same as that of a newly developed parallel robot with SCARA-type motions. Starting from the direct and inverse kinematic model, the expressions for the singularity loci of 3-RPR planar parallel robots are determined. Then, the global behavior at all singularities is geometrically described by studying the degeneracy of the direct kinematic model. Special cases of self-motions are then examined and the degree of freedom gained in such special configurations is kinematically interpreted. Finally, a practical example is discussed and experimental validations performed on an actual robot prototype are presented.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations41
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Robotics ResearchSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207