MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198414766 · doi:10.1115/1.4052336

Exact Path Synthesis of RCCC Linkages for a Maximum of Nine Prescribed Positions

2021· article· en· W3198414766 on OpenAlexaff
Shaoping Bai, Zhongyi Li, Jorge Angeles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanisms and Robotics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and pharmacology of benzodiazepine derivatives
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)MathematicsControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Computer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article addresses the path synthesis of RCCC (revolute-cylindrical-cylindrical-cylindrical) linkages, a problem that has not received due attention in the literature. Compared with planar and spherical four-bar linkages, a RCCC linkage has many more design parameters, which lead to a complex formulation of the path synthesis problem and, consequently, to a quite challenging system of algebraic equations. In this article, the problem is solved with a novel formulation of path synthesis for visiting a number of prescribed positions. This is achieved by means of an alternative coordinate system, which allows point coordinates to be expressed with the aid of two vectors fixed to the same body. By this means, the rotation matrix used to represent the coupler link attitude is obviated. The synthesis equations are then formulated in a simple form. Our formulation confirms that path synthesis admits exact solutions for up to nine prescribed positions, which proves a landmark claim submitted by Burmester. Examples are included to demonstrate the path synthesis procedure with the method thus developed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mechanisms and RoboticsSame topicSynthesis and pharmacology of benzodiazepine derivativesFrench-language works237,207