MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W964473692 · doi:10.1115/detc2001/dac-21101

A Versatile Design Platform for a Walking Robot in Harsh Environments

2001· article· en· W964473692 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Lupien, Patrick Lessard, Jean−Christophe Demers, Guillaume Lambert, Pascal Bigras, Thiagas S. Sankar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentRobotMobile robotHuman–computer interactionSystems engineeringProcess (computing)Computer scienceEngineering design processDesign processEngineeringControl engineeringSimulationSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligenceWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a previous paper [1] on the design of Capra — a quadruped robot with improved agility, we had presented the main design avenues that were to be considered for the development of an agile mobile walking robot, Capra. The objective of achieving full and autonomous robot agility in harsh environments has always been predominant in our research program on robot design for improved capabilities and applications potential. In this follow-up paper, we report the design results to meet another level of objectives that we had previously determined and currently are incorporating in the Capra hierarchy. Systematic design methodologies that were developed for the robotic machine structure also enable one to consider the Capra robot as not only an agile walking-machine but also as a versatile design platform. It can be deployed for retrofit in many automation applications or for specific uses in harsh environments involving critical design constraints. This design approach has resulted in the development and integration of many of Capra’s fundamental sub-systems by means of a range of modules and prototypes. This paper addresses all the different design issues involved in the development of a versatile design platform for a truly mobile robot. The design methodologies to support the various capabilities are presented here as independent systems, which can be fitted, integrated and retrofitted for any mobile robot configuration. Several design results are presented as examples of the design process.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Locomotion and ControlFrench-language works237,207