MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802262318 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2014-0012

KINEMATICS AND SINGULARITY ANALYSIS OF A CRRHHRRC PARALLEL SCHÖNFLIES MOTION GENERATOR

2014· article· en· W2802262318 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Takashi Harada, Jorge Angeles

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsKinematicsSingularityMotion (physics)Generator (circuit theory)Classical mechanicsMotion analysisPhysicsComputer scienceMechanicsMathematicsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel architecture for a parallel Schönflies motion generator was recently proposed, consisting of a CRRHHRRC linkage. The novelty of this architecture lies in its simplicity, as it comprises only two limbs, thereby forming a single-loop closed kinematic chain. Reported in this paper is a realization of this architecture, intended for the production of a proof-of-concept prototype. The realization includes an innovative actuator mechanism, which is based on two-degree-of-freedom cylindrical joints. Moreover, its moving plate is coupled to the two limbs by means of corresponding coaxial H pairs. The paper focuses on the kinematics and singularity analysis of this robot, intended for fast pick-and-place operations. The prototype is currently under development at McGill University’s Centre for Intelligent Machines.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207