MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152036265 · doi:10.1109/iros.2011.6048567

A walking stability controller with disturbance rejection based on CMP criterion and Ground Reaction Force feedback

2011· article· en· W3152036265 on OpenAlexaff
R. Beranek, H. Fung, Mojtaba Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

Venue2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Control theory (sociology)Stability (learning theory)Controller (irrigation)Computer scienceFeedback controllerGround reaction forceControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)PhysicsArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel controller using Center of Gravity (COG) planning based on the Centroidal Moment Pivot (CMP) criterion with Ground Reaction Force (GRF) feedback is presented. High level motion planning of the robot is done by planning a reference CMP trajectory that lies within the support polygon. In order to ensure rotational stability, the controller regulates the distance between the Zero Moment Point (ZMP) and the reference CMP through COG manipulation. A reference COG trajectory is generated from the measured GRF and a simplified model of the rotational dynamics of the robot. The reference COG is then decomposed into reference joint velocities via kinematic resolution of the COG Jacobian. Planar simulations show that modifying the COG trajectory using the CMP criterion with GRF feedback increases the controller's robustness to external disturbances compared to a ZMP based controller. Additionally, the results show that the constant non-zero momentum generated by external disturbances can be regulated by minimizing the difference between the reference CMP and ZMP positions, without explicitly regulating the momentum about the COG.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and SystemsSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207