MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400526109 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2024.3421285

Similarities Between Wheels and Tracks: A “Tire Model” for Tracked Vehicles

2024· article· en· W4400526109 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAutomotive engineeringVehicle safetyVehicle dynamicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an important component of land transportation systems, tracked vehicles (TRVs) and wheeled vehicles (WVs) have developed independently in parallel, particularly in the modeling of vehicle-ground interactions. However, their differences are not as significant as they appear. This paper introduces a simplified terramechanics-based track-ground interaction model for the motion control of TRVs on firm ground. The simplified interaction model addresses the problem that the terramechanics-based models are too complex to be applied to optimization-based real-time control algorithms. Interestingly, the proposed track-ground interaction model closely resembles to the tire model used for WVs. Through comparison, we present the unified mechanisms underlying vehicle-ground interactions. In our approach, TRVs can be treated as a special type of skid-steer WV, which benefits the theories and methods of wheel vehicles to be deployed in the TRV domain. Finally, we verify the proposed interaction model with extensive dynamic data from a real dual motor-driven TRV to demonstrate its effectiveness.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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