MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906461668 · doi:10.1115/1.4042346

Exploiting the Kinematic Redundancy of a (6 + 3) Degrees-of-Freedom Parallel Mechanism

2018· article· en· W2906461668 on OpenAlexafffund
Louis-Thomas Schreiber, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanisms and Robotics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsWorkspaceRedundancy (engineering)Degrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)ActuatorMechanism (biology)Computer scienceKinematic chainKinematic diagramInverse kinematicsControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringRobotEngineeringArtificial intelligencePhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents methods to exploit the redundancy of a kinematically redundant spatial parallel mechanism with three redundant DOFs. The architecture of the mechanism is similar to the well-known Gough–Stewart (GS) platform and it retains its advantages, i.e., the members connecting the base to the moving platform are only subjected to tensile/compressive loads. The kinematic redundancy is exploited to avoid singularities and extend the rotational workspace. The architecture is described and the associated kinematic relationships are presented. Solutions for the inverse kinematics are given, as well as strategies to take into account the limitations of the mechanism such as mechanical interferences and velocity limits of the actuators while controlling the redundant degrees-of-freedom.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanisms and RoboticsSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207