Parasitic Inclinations in Cable-Driven Parallel Robots using Cable Loops
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cable-Driven Parallel Robots (CDPRs) also noted as wire-driven robots are parallel manipulators with flexible cables instead of rigid links. A CDPR consists in a base frame, a Moving-Platform (MP) and a set of cables connecting in parallel the MP to the base frame. CDPRs are well-known for their advantages over the classical parallel robots in terms of large workspace, reconfigurability, large payload capacity and high dynamic performance. In spite of all the mentioned advantages, one of the main shortcomings of the CDPRs is their limited orientation workspace. The latter drawback is mainly due to cable interferences and collisions between cables and surrounding environment. Hence, a planar four-Degree-of-Freedom (DoF) under-constrained CDPR with an articulated MP is introduced and studied in this paper. The end-effector is articulated through a cable loop, which enables the robot to obtain a modular pose determination, namely orientation and positioning. As a result, the mechanism under study has an unlimited and singularity-free orientation workspace in addition to a large translational workspace. It should be noted that some unwanted rotational motions of the moving platform, namely, parasitic inclinations, arise due to the cable loop. Finally, those parasitic inclinations are modeled and assessed for the mechanism at hand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it