MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802812498 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2011-0029

THE DYNAMICS OF A SINGLE ALGEBRAIC SCREW PAIR

2011· article· en· W2802812498 on OpenAlexaffvenue
James Robinson, M. John D. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsKinematic chainConstraint (computer-aided design)Linkage (software)Rotation (mathematics)Coupling (piping)Algebraic numberDynamics (music)Translation (biology)Chain (unit)Classical mechanicsInertial frame of referenceMathematicsKinetic energyPosition (finance)PhysicsComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Topology (electrical circuits)Mathematical analysisGeometryEngineeringCombinatoricsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The algebraic screw pair, or A-pair, represents a new class of kinematic constraint that exploits the self-motions inherent to a specific configuration of Griffis-Duffy platform. Using the A-pair as a joint in a hybrid parallel-serial kinematic chain results in a sinusoidal coupling of rotation and translation between adjacent links. The resulting linkage is termed an A-chain. This paper reveals the dynamic equations of motion of a single A-pair and examines the impact of the inertial properties of the legs of the A-pair on the dynamics. A numerical example illustrates the impact of the leg effects from different perspectives and shows that while the gravity effects of the legs are significant, it may be possible to neglect the leg kinetic energy from the dynamics model.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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