MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1846723108 · doi:10.5898/jhri.4.2.reveleau

Visual Representation of Sound Sources and Interaction Forces in a Teleoperation Interface for a Mobile Robot

2015· article· en· W1846723108 on OpenAlexaff
Aurélien Reveleau, François Ferland, Mathieu Labbé, Dominic Létourneau, François Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human-Robot Interaction · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeleoperationInterface (matter)Sound (geography)Human–computer interactionRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceMobile robotRobotAcousticsArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercial telepresence robots provide video, audio, and proximity data to remote operators through a teleoperation user interface running on standard computing devices. As new modalities such as force sensing and sound localization are being developed and tested on advanced robotic platforms, ways to integrate such information on a teleoperation interface are required. This paper demonstrates the use of visual representations of forces and sound localization in a 3D teleoperation interface. Forces are represented using colors, size, bar graphs and arrows, while speech or ring bubbles are used to represents sound positions and types. Validation of these modalities is done with 31 participants using IRL-1/TR, a humanoid platform equipped with differential elastic actuators to provide compliance and force control of its arms and capable of sound source localization. Results suggest that visual representations of interaction force and sound source can provide appropriately useful information to remote operators.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human-Robot InteractionSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207