Design of Teach Pendant for Robot Glazing System
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design of Teach Pendant for Robot Glazing System Seungyeol Lee, Sunghoon Eom, Jeonil Moon Pages 1271-1280 (2013 Proceedings of the 30th ISARC, Montréal, Canada, ISBN 978-1-62993-294-1, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Currently, a new construction method using a robotic system is widely spreading in construction sites. This study is related to the design of glazing robot's teach pendant which can improve convenience of handling and hence improve the productivity through the efficient interaction between an operator and a robot while doing glazing works, e.g., curtain wall installing. The suitability of selection and arrangement of control switches was assessed according to mechanical motions of a glazing robot, and design guidelines for improving convenience and productivity were drawn up through questionnaires carried out by site operators. To verify the proposed design guidelines, working time comparison of the proposed teach pendant and the existing teach pendant was executed. Keywords: Teach pendant, Design guideline, Curtain wall, Glazing robot DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2013/0143 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it