Underactuated Finger Closing Motion Control Using Dual Drive Actuation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a novel technique to prescribe and control the closing motion of a linkage-driven underactuated finger is presented. Since an underactuated, a.k.a self-adaptive, finger generally only has one actuator for a given number of degrees of freedom, its closing motion before making contact with an object is typically imposed by its mechanical design and cannot be changed once the finger is built. In the literature, several closing motions for underactuated fingers have been proposed each one having its own merits and in each case, associated to a particular mechanical layout. In this work, the authors propose a novel design of a partially compliant underactuated finger based on a dual drive actuation system where two motors, which can be used independently or in combination, move the finger. Each of these motors prescribes a different closing motion which has been selected amongst the most commonly found in the literature. In order to characterize the behavior and performances of this finger, a kinetostatic analysis is carried on and a lumped compliance model is developed. The geometry of the finger is then optimized using a genetic algorithm in order to achieve the desired kinematic motions.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".