MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148389969 · doi:10.1109/acc.2007.4282734

On the Effects of Constraints on Bipedal Balance Control during Standing

2007· article· en· W2148389969 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

VenueProceedings of the ... American Control Conference/Proceedings of the American Control Conference · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Control theory (sociology)UnderactuationTorqueWork (physics)Balance (ability)Center of pressure (fluid mechanics)Center of gravityControl (management)Computer scienceMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceEconomicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The satisfaction of constraints between the foot-link and the ground is extremely important for balance control of bipedal standing. In this work, the effects of the gravity constraint, friction constraint and center of pressure constraint on balancing of bipedal standing are investigated. The regions in the state space are identified and divided into fully-actuated and underactuated regions based on whether the constraints are possible to be satisfied. The ranges of control torque are determined satisfying the constraints. More importantly, regions within which regardless of the controllers the constraints can not be satisfied are identified. The results also show the specific constraint causes the violation, and help us predict how the foot-link moves once the constraint is violated.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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