MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320154336 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.01.136

Control of a Three-Degree-of-Freedom Variable Inertia Generator

2022· article· en· W4320154336 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Samuel Verret, Thierry Laliberté, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGyroscopeInertiaGimbalControl theory (sociology)FlywheelKinematicsGenerator (circuit theory)Moment of inertiaComputer scienceEngineeringControl (management)Control engineeringPhysicsMechanical engineeringClassical mechanicsAerospace engineeringPower (physics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the control of a three-degreeof-freedom ungrounded rotational inertia\ngenerator that leverages the gyroscopic effect to render a prescribed inertia. A kinematic model is first\nestablished to identify the source of the instability observed with a previous version of the control\nsystem of the device. To address this instability issue, a novel control approach is then introduced and\nexperimentally validated. Experiments are conducted in which a user actively rotates the device with\nprescribed simulated inertias that are set to 1, 2, 3 and 3.5 times the device's actual total inertia. In\nthe experiments, the flywheels of the device are given an initial velocity of 105 rad/s in order to take\nadvantage of the gyroscopic effect to render the proper inertia to the user. While this paper outlines the\ncapability of the ungrounded device to render a prescribed inertia, it ultimately presents the continuous\ncontrol of a double gimbal gyroscope that is physically limited by its joints.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207