MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802997444 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2013-0009

DESIGN FOR OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE OF 3-RPS PARALLEL MANIPULATOR USING EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS

2013· article· en· W2802997444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sabbavarapu Ramana Babu, Vegesina Ramachandra Raju, K. Ramji

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkspaceJacobian matrix and determinantSortingParallel manipulatorComputer scienceKinematicsConstraint (computer-aided design)Multi-objective optimizationGenetic algorithmMathematical optimizationControl theory (sociology)Optimal designManipulator (device)AlgorithmMathematicsControl (management)RobotArtificial intelligenceApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an optimal kinematic design for a general type of 3-RPS spatial parallel manipulator based on multi-objective optimization. The objective functions considered are Global Conditioning Index (GCI), Global stiffness Index (GSI) and Workspace volume. The objective functions are optimized simultaneously to improve the dexterity as well as the workspace volume which represents the working capacity of a parallel manipulator. A multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithm based on the control elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm is adopted to find the true optimal Pareto front. A constraint Jacobian matrix is derived analytically and the manipulator workspace is generated by numerical search method. The static analysis of the manipulator is also carried out to determine the compliance of the end-effecter.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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