MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406038306 · doi:10.1002/rob.22511

The Simulation and Path Tracking Control Study of Magnetic Miniature Soft Robots

2025· article· en· W4406038306 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

VenueJournal of Field Robotics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersScience and Technology Plan Project of TaizhouNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPath (computing)Tracking (education)RobotComputer scienceControl (management)Control engineeringSimulationControl theory (sociology)EngineeringArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Magnetic miniature soft robots hold significant potential in biomedical research, especially for targeted therapy, drug delivery, and cell manipulation. Precise path tracking control is crucial for these robots in complex biomedical applications. Here, we propose a Stanley path tracking control algorithm based on visual feedback for magnetic soft robots. First, a magnetic miniature soft crawling robot was designed and fabricated, and its crawling mechanism was detailed. Next, a simulation framework using the material point method (MPM) was constructed to simulate the movement and deformation of the miniature robot and to verify the proposed crawling mechanism. Finally, visual feedback technology was used to obtain the robot's position and posture, and the Stanley algorithm was applied for path tracking control in crawling mode. The effectiveness of the proposed path tracking control strategy has been verified through multiple experiments. Compared with the traditional Pure Pursuit control method, it has higher robustness and better control accuracy.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · 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