A Comparison Study of Three Degree-of-Freedom Micro-motion Parallel Kinematic Machines with/without Actuation Redundancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison study of two unique micro-motion parallel kinematic manipulators (PKM): a three degrees of freedom (DOF) micro-motion PKM and a 3-DOF micro-motion PKM with actuation redundancy. The 3-DOF micro-motion PKM has three linear-motion driving units, while the 3-DOF micro-motion PKM with actuator redundancy has four of these units. For both designs, the linear motion driving units are identical and both machines have the same passive link in the middle of the structure. The manipulator with actuator redundancy is designed to prevent singularity and to improve stiffness. The inverse kinematics and Jacobian of these two PKMs are analyzed, the stiffness properties are determined and global stiffness is optimized using genetic algorithm. A comparison of the global stiffness indicates that the 3-DOF micro motion PKM with actuator redundancy outperforms the one without actuator redundancy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".