Motion Analysis and Modeling of Pneumatic Bellows Robotic Arm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pneumatic soft robots are increasingly valued for their lightweight, flexibility and adaptability to complex environments. Among various structures, pneumatic soft robotic arm is widely used in the fields of medical rehabilitation, complex terrain exploration, and service industry, etc., making it a popular form of pneumatic soft robots. In practical applications, precise control of soft robotic arms is very important, which requires a complete understanding of their motion patterns and corresponding modelling. However, due to their nonlinearity, the motion patterns of soft robotic arms are complex, which makes the motion analysis and modeling of the soft robotic arm a challenging topic. Based on the above considerations, this paper analyzes the motion of a pneumatic soft robotic arm and develops a prediction model for its input-output characteristics. First, we introduce the basic structure and experimental platform of a pneumatic soft robotic arm, after that, we analyze its performances including spatial reach, response time and bending angle, and designed an application experiment based on the results of the analysis. In the end, we use BP neural network to establish a model of the input air pressure and the end coordinates, and the accuracy of the model was verified through experiments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".