MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1878249965 · doi:10.1109/robot.1996.503834

Haptic texturing-a stochastic approach

2002· article· en· W1878249965 on OpenAlexaff
Juhani O. Siira, Dinesh K. Pai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyComputer scienceGraphical user interfaceTexture (cosmology)Constraint (computer-aided design)Surface finishTexture mappingComputer visionComputer graphics (images)SimulationImage (mathematics)EngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All objects have a surface roughness which manifests itself as small forces when objects slide under load against each other. Simulating this roughness haptically enriches the interaction between a user and a virtual world, just as creating graphical textures enhances the depiction of a scene. As with graphical textures, a major design constraint for haptic textures is the generation of a sufficiently "realistic" texture given hard constraints on computational costs. The authors present a simple, fast algorithm to synthesize haptic textures from statistical properties of surfaces. The synthesized texture can be overlaid on other contact models, such as hard contact with Coulomb friction. The algorithm requires minimal hardware support, and can be implemented on a variety of force-feedback mechanisms. It has been successfully implemented on a two-degree-of-freedom haptic interface (the Pantograph).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations101
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207