MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414110606 · doi:10.1109/lra.2025.3608649

Development of a Stick-Slip Dielectric Elastomer Actuator for Robotic Applications

2025· article· en· W4414110606 on OpenAlexaff
Hongzhi Xu, Zhi Li, Xiuyu Zhang, Jinjun Shan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDielectric materials and actuators
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsActuatorElastomerDielectricDielectric elastomersInterface (matter)Rotation (mathematics)Face (sociological concept)Transmission (telecommunications)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dielectric elastomer actuators (DEAs) face a performance tradeoff between achieving large displacements and high driving speeds, which limits their use in precision actuation scenarios requiring both rapid response and a wide motion range. To address these limitations, this study introduces a novel stick-slip actuation strategy that leverages the unique deformation properties of dielectric elastomers (DEs) combined with friction interface dynamics. Based on this principle, a stick-slip dielectric elastomer actuator (SSDEA) was developed, consisting of a DEA module with two fan-shaped electrode regions, a spherical rotor, and a 3D-printed framework. The structural design simplifies assembly by eliminating the need for complex techniques while ensuring operational stability. This design enables continuous multi-degree-of-freedom (multi-DOF) rotational motion without traditional transmission mechanisms. A dynamic model is established to analyze the actuator's behavior, and experimental validation confirms that the stick-slip strategy enhances both motion speed and resolution compared to conventional DEA systems. Its integration into a robotic facial model for simulating eyeball movements demonstrates its potential for compact, high-performance actuation in humanoid robotics.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicDielectric materials and actuatorsFrench-language works237,207