MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980238257 · doi:10.1117/12.646991

Zero-crossing edge detection for visual force measurement in assembly of MEMS devices

2006· article· en· W1980238257 on OpenAlexafffund
Yasser H. Anis, James K. Mills, William L. Cleghorn

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsBlob detectionMeasure (data warehouse)Microelectromechanical systemsComputer visionDisplacement (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGrippersZero crossingEdge detectionAcousticsImage processingMechanical engineeringEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a new visual force sensor is proposed to measure the microforces acting upon the jaws of passive, compliant microgrippers, used to construct out-of-plane 3-D microstructures. The vision-based force measurement technique is reduced to determining the deflections of the microgripper jaws during the microassembly process. A computer vision system is used to measure the deflections in the gripper's jaws during the joining and grasping processes. A mathematical model of the microgripper system was developed where a relation between the force and the jaw displacement was deduced. Image processing methods, such as Zero-crossing Laplacian of Gaussian edge detection and region-filling, are used. The relative positions of the microgripper jaws, with respect to the gripper's pad, are determined by means of object recognition. Performed experiments confirm the success of the proposed sensor and verify that the measured deflections comply with the profile variations of the microgripper.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207