MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607444396 · doi:10.1142/s2301385017500042

Experimental Test of Unmanned Ground Vehicle Delivering Goods Using RRT Path Planning Algorithm

2017· article· en· W2607444396 on OpenAlexafffund
Yiqun Dong, Youmin Zhang, Jianliang Ai

Bibliographic record

VenueUnmanned Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilConcordia University
KeywordsMotion planningSoftware deploymentRandom treePath (computing)KinematicsComputer sciencePosition (finance)SimulationCollision avoidanceCollisionUnmanned ground vehicleTree (set theory)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer securityMathematicsRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the experimental test of an unmanned ground vehicle delivering goods. Configuration and motion equations of the vehicle are illustrated, drivers for the vehicle motion control are introduced. In the presence of obstacles, the collision-free path connecting the vehicle from the start to the goal position is planned using Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT) algorithm; collision detection, nodes selection, tree expansion, and path generation of the RRT are presented, the path optimization approach is discussed. To grip the goods, vehicle mechanical arms are manipulated based on the inversed kinematics, some control flow of the arms deployment for interacting with the vehicle motion control is applied. Experimental test of the vehicle delivering goods in face of static obstacles is presented; test result validates the applicability of the proposed framework.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnmanned SystemsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207