MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390343232 · doi:10.18280/jesa.560616

A New Method Investigation for Robotic Inverted Pendulum Movement and Control

2023· article· en· W4390343232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elaf Jirjees Dhulkefl, Zuhair Shakor Mahmood, Ali Najdet Nasret, Ahmed Burhan Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverted pendulumMovement (music)Movement controlDouble inverted pendulumComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysicsAcousticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of sensor fusion techniques has played a crucial role in the advancement of the contemporary robot applications era.This is primarily due to the fact that numerous robot applications heavily rely on the amalgamation of data from multiple sensors, which capture information from the immediate surroundings.Examples of such applications include interactive virtual reality games, navigation systems, and fitness trackers.This study presents the implementation of a sensor fusion technique utilizing low-cost sensors, specifically a gyro sensor and a tilt sensor, to precisely estimate the balancing angle of an inverted pendulum robot system.Hence, this research study presents an innovative approach to address the issue of gyro drift, which has a detrimental impact on the precision of orientation calculations in the indirect Kalman filter-based sensor fusion.The emergence of kinematics and dynamics is observed in this particular process.The frequency responses of two distinct sensors, namely a gyro and a tilt sensor, have been subjected to analysis.A technique of sensor fusion has been utilized to counterbalance the inherent drift of the gyroscope sensor.The integration of a low-cost gyro sensor and a tilt sensor through the process of filtering facilitates the determination of the pendulum angle with efficacy, thereby eliminating the necessity of deploying more expensive sensors.The implementation of control for tracking circular trajectories has been carried out in empirical investigations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207