Flying Spiders: A Reconfigurable Spider Drone For Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, most commonly known as drones are the raging fire of this generation. Attracting a vast age ranges from children to adults. Not only can drones be used for fun, but they can inspect dangerous places for humans which reduces health risks. These facts helped create the curiosity to research how a drone works and different designs. The reason for which, the main purpose of this research was to come up with a design that will have all the components necessary for a drone to function. Additionally, a safe design that will protect the body (the brain too) of the drone. That is the most expensive and important, whereas the arms and propellers are easy to repair and cheaper. Therefore, the first step of the methodology was the idea generation. This research was inspired by things seen around from day-to-day. In particular, spiders, shuriken (Japanese throwing knife) and step stools. The incorporation of the two led to the next step of the methodology of mechanical engineering design known as task classification. The main objective being safety and efficiency. Moving on to the third step being concept design, where three drones needed to be designed, later choosing the safest and efficient one. The final and fourth step being detailed design. Where the best design, being the upside-down spider, is chosen for LEGO Digital Design. This step was the most important one for future research purposes. For example, the correct components and pieces had to be present for the drone to be used as a step by step assembly station for third and fourth-year mechanical engineers. To conclude, the spider drone was the best design because its arms which are like spider legs gave more lift to the drone which made it perform before and protecting the body, also known as the brain. That is the most expensive part of the drone, and the arms are the inexpensive part that can be easily replaced. Additionally using legos as the main building material let the parts be used for other things such as cars and planes. For that reason, the upside-down spider was the best choice.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".