Track-stair and vehicle-manipulator interaction analysis for tracked mobile manipulators climbing stairs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes interactions between the tracks and the stairs, as well as those between the tracked mobile robot and the onboard manipulator for tracked mobile manipulators (TMMs) climbing stairs. Combining a tracked mobile robot, which has the ability to climb stairs, with an onboard manipulator, a TMM extends the workspace and scope of applications of the robot dramatically. However, this combination gives rise to complex track-stair and vehicle-manipulator interactions, because the configuration of the onboard manipulator affects load distribution, which will further influence the track-stair interactive forces. Unlike the wheeled mobile robots, which are normally assumed to obey the nonholonomic constraints, slippage is unavoidable for a tracked mobile robot, especially when climbing stairs. The track-stair interactive forces are complicated, which may take the forms of grouser-tread hooking force, track-stair edge frictional force, grouser-riser clutching force, and even their compositions. In this paper, the track-stair and vehicle-manipulator interactions are analyzed systematically, which are essential for tip-over prediction and prevention, as well as for automatic control of TMMs in autonomous and semi-autonomous stair-climbing. Simulations for a TMM being developed in our laboratory have demonstrated the usefulness of the presented analysis results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it