MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594060995 · doi:10.1109/solsen.1992.228297

A comparison of muscle with artificial actuators

2003· article· en· W1594060995 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersGeneral Motors of CanadaMedical Research Council CanadaKettering UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsActuatorArtificial musclePneumatic actuatorComputer scienceMechanical engineeringControl engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Artificial' actuator technologies under development include shape memory alloys, piezoelectric actuators, magnetostrictive actuators, contractile polymers and electrostatic actuators. The relevant properties of muscle are outlined and compared with a variety of artificial actuators. These and other actuators, such as regular and superconducting electromagnetic motors, internal combustion engines, hydraulic motors, pneumatic actuators, are reviewed and compared with muscle elsewhere (see Hunter, 1990; Hollerbach et al., 1991).< <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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations260
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207