MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249630807 · doi:10.1115/1.3046180

Forward Displacement Analysis of a Quadratic Planar Parallel Manipulator: 3-RPR Parallel Manipulator With Similar Triangular Platforms 1

2009· article· en· W4249630807 on OpenAlexafffund
Xianwen Kong, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mechanisms and Robotics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsRoyal SocietyHeriot-Watt University
KeywordsParallel manipulatorSingularityWorkspacePlanarDisplacement (psychology)Quadratic equationManipulator (device)MathematicsControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMathematical analysisRobotGeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quadratic parallel manipulator refers to a parallel manipulator with a quadratic characteristic polynomial. This paper revisits the forward displacement analysis (FDA) of a quadratic parallel manipulator: 3-RP̱R planar parallel manipulator with similar triangular platforms. Although it has been revealed numerically elsewhere that for this parallel manipulator, the four solutions to the FDA fall, respectively, into its four singularity-free regions (in its workspace), it is unclear if there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the four formulas, each producing one solution to the FDA, and the four singularity-free regions. Using an algebraic approach, this paper will prove that such a one-to-one correspondence exists. Therefore, a unique solution to the FDA can be obtained in a straightforward way for such a parallel manipulator if the singularity-free region in which it works is specified.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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