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 OpenAlexaff
Caixia Yang, Q. Wu

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.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... American Control Conference/Proceedings of the American Control ConferenceSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207