MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400624556 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2024.070221

Overview of the development history and current design status of quadrupedal animal robots

2024· article· en· W4400624556 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadrupedalismCurrent (fluid)RobotDevelopment (topology)Computer scienceEngineeringArchitectural engineeringArtificial intelligenceBiologyElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1880s, humans have continued to make significant advances in quadrupedal machinery. In comparison to bipedal and wheeled robots, quadrupedal robots offer greater dexterity and stability. They are capable of traversing challenging terrains, exhibiting remarkable adaptability and carrying capacity. They are well-suited for tasks such as patrol, search and rescue, detection, and exploration. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the development history of quadrupedal robots, to examine the design principles underlying their construction, and to offer insights into the prospects for future research in this field. To this end, we have selected a number of representative robots for analysis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.202 · 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