Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetically levitated microrobotic systems have shown a great deal of promise for micromanipulation tasks. A new large-gap magnetic suspension system has recently been developed at the University of Waterloo in order to develop microrobotic systems for various applications. In order to achieve motion with the system, a model is needed in order to facilitate the design of various aspects of the system, such as the microrobot and the controller. In order to derive equations of motion for the system attempts were made to characterize the force produced by the magnetic drive unit in terms of a simple analytical equation. The force produced by the magnetic drive unit was estimated with the aid of a finite element model. The derived equations were able to predict the general trend of the force curves, and with sufficient parameter tweaking the error between the force estimated by the finite element model and the force estimated by the analytical equation could be minimized. System models describing the motion of the system in the horizontal and vertical directions are identified and compared to the actual system response. The vertical position response is identified through a least squares parameter estimate of the closed loop response combined with a partial reconstruction of the root locus diagram, with the model structure based on the known dynamics of a simplified form of magnetic levitation. This model was able to provide a reasonable prediction of the system response for a variety of PID controllers under a variety of input conditions. The horizontal models are identified using a least-squares parameter estimate of the open loop characteristics of the system. The horizontal models are able to provide a reasonable prediction of the system response under PD and PID control. Full spatial motion of a microrobot prototype is demonstrated over a working range of 20x22x30 mm3, with PID controller parameters and reference trajectories adjusted to minimize disturbances. The RMS error at steady state is on the order of 0. 020 mm for vertical positioning and 0. 008 mm for horizontal positioning. A linear quadratic regulator implemented for vertical position control was able to reduce the vertical position RMS error to 0. 014 mm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".