MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319233200 · doi:10.2514/6.2000-4570

Contact parameter identification for robotic systems

2000· article· en· W2319233200 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Controller (irrigation)Benchmark (surveying)StiffnessElectrical impedanceContact forceComputer scienceStability (learning theory)Identification (biology)Recursive least squares filterControl engineeringImpedance controlAdaptive controlRobotEstimation theoryEngineeringControl (management)AlgorithmAdaptive filterArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews and compares three impedance control algorithms with respect to identificatio n of environment stiffness and damping during robot constrained motion. Estimates of these parameters, also referred to as contact parameters, are valuable for force-tracking and stability of impedance force controllers. Our primary interest in identifying these parameters stems from their use as inputs to dynamics simulation software with contact dynamics capability. The algorithms considered in this work include: an indirect adaptive controller with modifications to identify environment damping, an MR AC controller and a recursive least-squares estimation technique. A benchmark test was performed using both numerical simulation and experimentation. Our results indicate that the indirect adaptive controller has the best combination of performance and ease of use. In addition, the effect of persistently exciting signals is discussed.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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