MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568656855 · doi:10.1109/robot.1992.220069

Soft materials for robotic fingers

2003· article· en· W1568656855 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGRASPComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSoft materialsObject (grammar)Computer visionRobotic handRobotRobot handGrippersNatural rubberMechanical engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three potential problems exist in multifingered hands. The impact forces that result during each instant of grasping a rigid object can affect the functioning of the finger tip sensor. A hand with hard fingers cannot securely grasp objects that have uneven surfaces due to the poor conformability of the fingers. Repetitive strains are induced into the fingers throughout manipulation task. Carefully chosen materials-plastic, rubber sponge, a fine powder, a paste, and a gel-were experimentally compared for their ability to overcome these three problems. Results showed that sponge is the most suitable and plastic is the least suitable for the application. For practical reasons, however, the gel was a good compromise over the sponge. It is recommended that future robotic hands constitute a soft finger or at least fingers with soft tips, constructed out of carefully chosen materials.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Quick stats

Citations102
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207