MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517517923 · doi:10.3390/s16081271

Mathematical Model and Calibration Experiment of a Large Measurement Range Flexible Joints 6-UPUR Six-Axis Force Sensor

2016· article· en· W2517517923 on OpenAlexaff
Yanzhi Zhao, Caifeng Zhang, Dan Zhang, Zhongpan Shi, Tieshi Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hebei ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsJacobian matrix and determinantRevolute jointCalibrationThrustCorrectnessControl theory (sociology)Torsion (gastropod)Range (aeronautics)Computer scienceEngineeringSimulationAcousticsMechanical engineeringAlgorithmAerospace engineeringMathematicsRobotPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays improving the accuracy and enlarging the measuring range of six-axis force sensors for wider applications in aircraft landing, rocket thrust, and spacecraft docking testing experiments has become an urgent objective. However, it is still difficult to achieve high accuracy and large measuring range with traditional parallel six-axis force sensors due to the influence of the gap and friction of the joints. Therefore, to overcome the mentioned limitations, this paper proposed a 6-Universal-Prismatic-Universal-Revolute (UPUR) joints parallel mechanism with flexible joints to develop a large measurement range six-axis force sensor. The structural characteristics of the sensor are analyzed in comparison with traditional parallel sensor based on the Stewart platform. The force transfer relation of the sensor is deduced, and the force Jacobian matrix is obtained using screw theory in two cases of the ideal state and the state of flexibility of each flexible joint is considered. The prototype and loading calibration system are designed and developed. The K value method and least squares method are used to process experimental data, and in errors of kind Ι and kind II linearity are obtained. The experimental results show that the calibration error of the K value method is more than 13.4%, and the calibration error of the least squares method is 2.67%. The experimental results prove the feasibility of the sensor and the correctness of the theoretical analysis which are expected to be adopted in practical applications.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207