Application of Mechatronic Engineering Technology in the Structural Design of Intelligent Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural design of intelligent robots is crucial to their performance and functions, and the application of mechatronic engineering technology can significantly improve the motion control and perception capabilities of intelligent robots. In this paper, the effects of the application of mechatronic engineering technology in the structural design of intelligent robots on key performance indicators such as movement flexibility, adaptability, execution efficiency, and management complexity are confirmed through experiments. In the comparison between the traditional robot structure and the intelligent robot structure improved by mechatronic engineering, the improved intelligent robot scored 4.8 in terms of movement flexibility, which is 37.1% higher than the traditional structure; in terms of adaptability, the score reached 4.6, an increase of 43.8%; in terms of execution efficiency, the average task completion time was reduced to 4.7 seconds, an increase of 51.6%; and the management complexity score reached 4.5, an increase of 55.2%. This shows that the application of mechatronic engineering technology in the structural design of intelligent robots will provide a higher level of performance and functions for the development of intelligent robots, and promote the wide application of intelligent robots in various fields.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".