Use of Traditional and Novel Methods to Evaluate the Influence of an EVA Glove on Hand Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gloved hand is one of an astronaut s primary means of interacting with the environment, and any restrictions imposed by the glove can strongly affect performance during extravehicular activity (EVA). Glove restrictions have been the subject of study for decades, yet previous studies have generally been unsuccessful in quantifying glove mobility and tactility. Past studies have tended to focus on the dexterity, strength, and functional performance of the gloved hand; this provides only a circumspect analysis of the impact of each type of restriction on the glove s overall capability. The aim of this study was to develop novel capabilities to provide metrics for mobility and tactility that can be used to assess the performance of a glove in a way that could enable designers and engineers to improve their current designs. A series of evaluations were performed to compare unpressurized and pressurized (4.3 psi) gloved conditions with the ungloved condition. A second series of evaluations were performed with the Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (TMG) removed. This series of tests provided interesting insight into how much of an effect the TMG has on gloved mobility - in some cases, the presence of the TMG restricted glove mobility as much as pressurization did. Previous hypotheses had assumed that the TMG would have a much lower impact on mobility, but these results suggest that an improvement in the design of the TMG could have a significant impact on glove performance. Tactility testing illustrated the effect of glove pressurization, provided insight into the design of hardware that interfaces with the glove, and highlighted areas of concern. The metrics developed in this study served to benchmark the Phase VI EVA glove and to develop requirements for the next-generation glove for the Constellation program.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".