MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739130636

Rapid prototyping of robotic vehicles using water jet cutters

2016· article· en· W2739130636 on OpenAlexaff
Willis de Ronde

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society of Intestinal Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChassisWater jetRobotRapid prototypingMachiningMechanical engineeringEngineeringFrame (networking)Engineering drawingComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringManufacturing engineeringArtificial intelligenceNozzle
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building a robotic platform from raw materials can take anything from a few weeks to a few years to complete depending on the complexity and size of the platform. We introduce a novel approach of using a water jet cutter for manufacturing a robot vehicle body within days. Both light weight and strong materials like aluminium and different engineering plastics can be cut to create prototype chassis/ bodies or even the final product. These platforms are quite ruggedized and can be used in varying environments for different applications. The two platforms manufactured using this approach are used as a mine inspection robot (Shongololo) and the other as an all-terrain vehicle to be used in vineyards(Dassie). “Shongololo’s” frame is made from engineering plastics and the chassis of “Dassie” was made from aluminium and cut using the water jet cutter. The advantage of using the water jet cutter is the speed at which the final product can be achieved and in addition little or no extra finishing is needed.  The chassis were made up of different sheets with internal shapes cut out to reduce the weight of the robot. Most mounting and screw holes can also be cut into the sheets. This approach simplifies the manufacturing process for prototyping robotic platforms. Using the water jet cutter approach allows us to build medium size robotic platforms with varying complexity in a matter of days compared to weeks using traditional machining methods.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207