MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806045912 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2017-0143

The adaptable amphibious wheel-legged robot

2018· article· en· W2806045912 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jicheng Liu, Jinshuai Yang, Binglu Yan, Liu Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai Municipal Education CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Shanghai
KeywordsKinematicsTrajectoryRobotClimbGaitComputer scienceMechanism (biology)Control theory (sociology)SimulationRobot kinematicsControl engineeringEngineeringMobile robotArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new category of large-diameter adaptable amphibious wheel-legged robot is proposed in this paper. The proposed mechanism can climb obstacles better than existing designs. The Denavit–Hartenberg (D–H) coordinate system is used for kinematic analysis, and the constructed kinematic model is used to solve for these joint variables for a redundant robot. The control strategy is to plan both the foot trajectory of the amphibious robot, to optimize the operational performance in special environments, as well as the walking gait. Then the closed-loop control system is used. A simulation is used to verify the usefulness of the planned foot trajectory and walking gait for an entire running cycle, and a circuit is designed to solve a communication problem between the Arduino and the AX-12 servo. Finally, the foot trajectory of a single robot leg is captured by a three-dimensional motion-capture system to verify the rationality of the foot trajectory and walking gait.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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