MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334337067 · doi:10.1115/detc2013-12108

Time-Optimal Trajectory Planning of Cable-Driven Parallel Mechanisms for Fully-Specified Paths With G1 Discontinuities

2013· article· en· W2334337067 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Barnett, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsTrajectoryConstraint (computer-aided design)Path (computing)Classification of discontinuitiesComputer scienceMotion planningControl theory (sociology)Point (geometry)RobotTrajectory optimizationRoboticsMechanism (biology)MinificationMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsControl (management)GeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time-optimal trajectory planning (TOTP) is a well-studied problem in robotics and manufacturing, which involves the minimization of the time required for the operation point of a mechanism to follow a path, subject to a set of constraints. A TOTP technique, designed for fully-specified paths that include abrupt changes in direction, was previously introduced by the first author of this paper: an incremental approach called minimum-time trajectory shaping (MTTS) was used. In the current paper, MTTS is adapted for use with cable-driven parallel robots, which exhibit the additional constraint that all cable tensions remain positive along a path to be followed. For many applications, cable tensions along a path are verified after trajectory generation, rather than imposed during trajectory generation. For the technique proposed in this paper, the minimum-tension constraint is imposed directly and is fully integrated with MTTS, during trajectory generation, thus maintaining a time-optimal solution. This approach is relevant for cable-driven mechanism applications that involve high accelerations, particularly in the vertical direction.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207