MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766045972 · doi:10.1115/detc2017-67378

Review and Discussion on Model Reference Adaptive Control for Mechanical Mechanisms

2017· article· en· W2766045972 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Technology and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsAdaptive controlControl engineeringComputer scienceReference modelRobot manipulatorControl theory (sociology)Control (management)RobotAdaptation (eye)Nonlinear systemRobotic armFocus (optics)Artificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional control systems are not able to properly balance out the load variation impact when robotic mechanisms carry and transport a variety of payloads. Adaptive control, particularly the model reference adaptive control (MRAC), is one of the ideal solutions that one can resort to address the mentioned problem. Adaptive control can be categorized into the following, model reference, self-tuning and gain-scheduled. Here, the authors mainly focus on the MRAC category. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, not so many recent papers can be found on MRAC for robotic manipulators because robotic manipulators are usually highly nonlinear and coupled systems, and sometimes it is not easy to design a stable MRAC in the robotic systems. This paper reviews and discusses the MRAC that is used in robotic manipulators and some issues of MRAC for robotic manipulators are presented as well. This review is able to give a general guideline for the future research in the MRAC of robotic manipulators.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.218 · 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