MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404194673 · doi:10.1017/s0263574724001486

Reconfigurable cable-driven parallel mechanism design: physical constraints and control

2024· article· en· W4404194673 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Khoshbin, Martin J.-D. Otis, Ramy Meziane

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept IlesUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanism (biology)Control (management)Computer scienceMechanism designControl engineeringComputer architectureEngineeringArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The cable-driven parallel mechanism (CDPM) is known as an interesting application in industry to pick and place objects owing to its advantages such as large workspaces. In addition to the advantages of this mechanism, there are some challenges to improving performance by considering constraints in different components, such as the behavior of cables, shape, size of the end effector and base, and model of pulleys and actuators. Moreover, the impact of online geometry reconfiguration must be analyzed. This paper demonstrates the impact of these constraints on the performance of reconfigurable CDPM. The methodology is based on the systematic review and meta-analysis guidelines to report the results. The databases used to find the papers are extracted from Scopus and Google Scholar, using related keywords. As a result, the impact of physical constraints on system performance is discussed. A total of 90 and 37 articles are selected, respectively. After removing duplicates and unrelated papers, 88 studies that met the inclusion criteria are selected for review. Even when considering the physical constraints in modeling the mechanism, simplifications in designing a model for the reconfigurable CDPM generate errors. There is a gap in designing high-performance controllers to track desired trajectories while reconfiguring the geometry, and the satisfaction of physical constraints needs to be satisfied. In conclusion, this review presents several constraints in designing a controller to track desired trajectories and improve performance in future work. This paper presents an integrated controller architecture that includes physical constraints and predictive control.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoboticaSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207