A comparative study of inverse dynamics in a spatial redundantly actuated parallel mechanism constrained by two point-contact higher kinematic pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A life-sized spatial redundantly actuated parallel mechanism (RAPM) constrained by two point-contact higher kinematic pairs (HKPs) has been designed, inspired by the mastication in human beings. To facilitate its real-time control in practice, an accurate inverse dynamics model is built in this paper. Firstly, its constrained motions are described, thereafter three dynamics methods, i.e., Newton–Euler’s law, the Lagrangian equations, and the principle of virtual work, respectively, are used to explore its rigid-body inverse dynamics. Symbolic results show that model structures based on these approaches are quite different. The model via Newton–Euler’s law well reflects the nature of the mechanism in terms of the constraint forces at HKPs, while those from the latter two methods do not contain them. Despite this, the actuating torques from these three models are identical. The comparisons between the dynamics models of the RAPM and its counterpart free of HKPs clarify that the constraints at HKPs greatly alter the model structures and numerical results, and the computational difficulties are considerably larger in the models of the RAPM.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".