MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312252144 · doi:10.1115/detc2015-47749

Analysis and Design of a Remote Center Compliance Universal Joint

2015· article· en· W2312252144 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre-Olivier Dubois, Lionel Birglen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWrenchMechanism (biology)Finite element methodUniversal jointLinkage (software)Jacobian matrix and determinantComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Four-bar linkageJoint (building)Screw theoryMechanism designEngineeringTopology (electrical circuits)SimulationMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringGeometryMathematicsElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel mechanical design of a lower mobility remote center compliance linkage. This mechanism consists in three platforms connected by three legs with universal joints. Two of these platforms are attached to the ground while last one is the mobile platform. Using screw theory, it is first demonstrated that this mechanism allows its mobile platform to rotate around a fixed point in space without having a joint directly connected to this point. Indeed, knowing the mobility of the two former platforms, it is possible to define a wrench system for each leg and thus, find the reciprocal twist system of the mobile platform. Then, the results of the optimization of the mechanism’s design through a genetic algorithm is presented using the conditioning of its Jacobian matrix as a criterion. Finally, a compliant version of the mechanism is developed and a finite element analysis (FEA) simulation demonstrates the proper mobility of the system under typical loading scenarios.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207