MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526208047 · doi:10.1109/aim.2016.7576889

Gyroscopic forces for mechanical manipulators

2016· article· en· W2526208047 on OpenAlexaff
Nan Wei, Soo Jeon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Inverse dynamicsKinematicsPath (computing)TrajectoryGyroscopeInverse kinematicsInverseComputer scienceConvergence (economics)Robot end effectorPhysicsMathematicsEngineeringClassical mechanicsControl (management)RobotArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has long been a challenge to control the end-effector trajectory of mechanical manipulators using only taskspace parameterization. While there exist some taskspace control strategies (such as the potential energy shaping) that guarantee the convergence of the end-effector to the target point without any inverse transformations, how to make the end-effector follow a desired path during the intermediate motion or to make it remain in certain subsets of taskspace, without resorting to inverse kinematics or inverse dynamics in one way or other, is still challenging. This paper studies the gyroscopic force as an auxiliary control action that can realize the desired motion profile of the end-effector without using any inverse transformations. Gyroscopic force is a specific type of force that does not affect the mechanical energy because its direction is always orthogonal to the velocity. This paper presents several ways to parameterize the artificial gyroscopic force with respect to the desired path profile of the end-effector as well as the desired velocity field that is often used as an indirect way to specify the target path. The formulated gyroscopic force is combined with the taskspace potential energy shaping control law to achieve the target tracking and the path following at the same time free from any inverse transformation. Simulation results are presented to validate the performance of proposed control strategies.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207