MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409593918 · doi:10.1109/icra.2016.7487435

Development and experimental validation of a reorientation algorithm for a free-floating serial manipulator

2016· article· en· W2409593918 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Alexandre Bettez-Bouchard, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevolute jointSerial manipulatorRobotTrajectoryControl theory (sociology)Computer sciencePlanarActuatorRotation (mathematics)Motion planningNonlinear systemAlgorithmParallel manipulatorSimulationArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method to reorient a free-floating serial manipulator using internal motion based on a path planning algorithm using a dynamic model of the manipulator and a potential function. Simulations with the proposed algorithm are performed using a nonlinear optimization technique in order to determine the actuator's velocity trajectories that achieve the reorientation. An example trajectory is presented in which a three-link planar robot starts from a pose in which all the links are aligned and ends with the same joint configuration but with the robot having completed a 180 degrees rotation. For this example, the algorithm finds trajectories that allow the robot to complete approximately 94% of the reorientation. To verify the simulation results against a real robot, a prototype of a planar robot with three bodies and two revolute joints is built. The experiments conducted show that the prototype is able to achieve the prescribed reorientation, even though the control of the orientation was implemented in an open-loop mode.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207