Walking gait of a planar bipedal robot with four-bar knees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design of a knee joint is a key issue in robotics and biomechanics to increase the compatibility between prostheses and human movements and to improve the performances of the bipedal robot. We propose a novel design for the knee joint of a planar bipedal robot, based on a four-bar linkage. The advantage of this structure is to produce a translation of the instantaneous center of rotation (ICR) of the knee joint like in the human case. We propose to study the sthenic criterion of a bipedal robot using four-bar knee joint during a walking gait. This walking gait is a succession of finite time double support phases, single support phases and impacts. During the double support phase, both feet rotate. This phase is ended by an impact on the ground of the toe of one foot, the other foot taking off. The single support phase is ended by an impact of the swing foot heel, the other foot keeping contact with the ground through its toe. A parametric optimization problem is presented for the determination of the parameters corresponding to the optimal cyclic walking gait. The main contribution of this paper is to show the influence of double support phases for cyclic stable walking gaits with this novel bipedal robot.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".