Error Modeling and Experimental Study of a Flexible Joint 6-UPUR Parallel Six-Axis Force Sensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By combining a parallel mechanism with integrated flexible joints, a large measurement range and high accuracy sensor is realized. However, the main errors of the sensor involve not only assembly errors, but also deformation errors of its flexible leg. Based on a flexible joint 6-UPUR (a kind of mechanism configuration where U-universal joint, P-prismatic joint, R-revolute joint) parallel six-axis force sensor developed during the prephase, assembly and deformation error modeling and analysis of the resulting sensors with a large measurement range and high accuracy are made in this paper. First, an assembly error model is established based on the imaginary kinematic joint method and the Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) method. Next, a stiffness model is built to solve the stiffness matrix. The deformation error model of the sensor is obtained. Then, the first order kinematic influence coefficient matrix when the synthetic error is taken into account is solved. Finally, measurement and calibration experiments of the sensor composed of the hardware and software system are performed. Forced deformation of the force-measuring platform is detected by using laser interferometry and analyzed to verify the correctness of the synthetic error model. In addition, the first order kinematic influence coefficient matrix in actual circumstances is calculated. By comparing the condition numbers and square norms of the coefficient matrices, the conclusion is drawn theoretically that it is very important to take into account the synthetic error for design stage of the sensor and helpful to improve performance of the sensor in order to meet needs of actual working environments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".