MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800788072 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2011-0016

CLIMBING MODEL AND OBSTACLE-CLIMBING PERFORMANCE OF A CABLE INSPECTION ROBOT FOR A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE

2011· article· en· W2800788072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fengyu Xu, Xingsong Wang, Lei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Inspection Robots
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstacleClimbingClimbRobotBridge (graph theory)Finite element methodEngineeringStructural engineeringSimulationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cable inspection robot is proposed to automatically check the cables of a cable-stayed bridge. First, a climbing model supported by an independent spring and an inspection robot is designed. Second, the dimensionless parameter, h/r, which is the ratio of the vertical height of the obstacle to the radius of the obstacle-climbing wheel, is selected as the evaluation standard of the climbing ability of the robot; after which a mathematical model of such obstacle-climbing ability is established. Third, the bearing capacity of the driving wheel rubber is studied using the finite element method. Afterwards, the analysis of the climbing performance is then carried out through simulation by studying two influential perspectives, namely, the positive pressure from the passive end spring and the swinging angle of the passive wheel. Finally, field experiments are carried out on the HuangPu Cable-Stayed Bridge. Based on the results, the robot can climb steadily on various inclined cables.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicPower Line Inspection RobotsFrench-language works237,207