MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554859152 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2010-0025

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF DISPLACEMENTS IN SPATIAL MECHANISMS WITH SPHERICAL JOINTS UTILIZING AN EXTENDED D-H NOTATION

2010· article· en· W2554859152 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jung-Fa Hsieh

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevolute jointKinematicsNotationGeometryRegular polygonDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Ball (mathematics)MathematicsComputer scienceClassical mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spherical joints consist of a pair of concave and convex spherical surfaces engaged in such a way as to prevent translational motion of the ball and socket whilst simultaneously allowing three degrees of rotational freedom. The kinematics of spatial mechanisms comprising links and joints are commonly analyzed using the Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) notation. However, whilst this method allows the kinematics of mechanisms containing prismatic, revolute, helical and cylindrical joints to be explicitly defined, it cannot be directly applied to mechanical systems containing spherical pairs. Accordingly, this paper proposes an extended D-H notation which allows the independent parameters of any spatial mechanism, including one with spherical pairs, to be derived for analysis and synthesis purposes. The validity of the proposed notation is demonstrated via its application to the analysis of mechanisms containing revolute (R), spherical (S), cylindrical (C) and prismatic (P) joints. The results confirm the viability of the extended D-H notation as a means of analyzing the displacements of mechanical systems containing kinematic chains such as RSCR, RSCP, CSSR and CSSP.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207