MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161955101 · doi:10.82308/48298

Contact parameter estimation using a space manipulator verification facility

2004· dissertation· en· W7161955101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Agar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParameter spacePayload (computing)Estimation theoryPoint (geometry)ToolboxContact forceRobotRobotic armControl theory (sociology)Identification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer simulations play an important role in the design and verification of space robotic operations since on-orbit tests are impossible to conduct before launch. Thus, accurate computer modelling and simulation of space robotic tasks is essential. Of particular difficulty are space manipulator operations, which involve constrained or contact tasks. Here, the contact dynamics capability in the modelling tools becomes critical for high fidelity simulation. This in turn implies a need for accurate determination of contact parameters, which are used as inputs to contact dynamics simulation. In this work, the identification of contact dynamics parameters based on sensor data obtained during robotic contact tasks is considered. The contact parameter estimation problem is addressed for simple and complex contacting geometries using the SPDM Task Verification Facility Manipulator Test-bed (SMT) at the Canadian Space Agency. The SMT is a space-representative robotic simulation facility. Single- and multiple-point contact parameter estimation software toolboxes were developed and used with SMT experiments. Single point SMT contact experiments were performed with six different payloads. The single point toolbox was used as part of the process of identifying payload stiffness from SMT experimental data. Multiple point contact parameter estimation experiments with the SMT were conducted using a mock-up of an International Space Station Arm Computer Unit (ACU) as payload. The multiple point toolbox was used to generate contact stiffness, damping and friction estimates. An evaluation of the sensitivity of the parameter estimation algorithm to mismatches in ACU physical dimensions and ACU geometry files was conducted.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207