MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995212779 · doi:10.1109/icorr.2013.6650346

Intelligent control of a smart walker and its performance evaluation

2013· article· en· W1995212779 on OpenAlexaff
Simon L. Grondin, Qingguo Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdmittanceController (irrigation)GaitComputer scienceAccelerationSimulationControl (management)Control theory (sociology)EngineeringArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent technological advances have allowed the development of force-dependent, intelligently controlled smart walkers that are able to provide users with enhanced mobility, support and gait assistance. The purpose of this study was to develop an intelligent rule-based controller for a smart walker to achieve a smooth interaction between the user and the walker. This study developed a rule-based mapping between the interaction force, measured by a load cell attached to the walker handle, and the acceleration of the walker. Ten young, healthy subjects were used to evaluate the performance of the proposed controller compared to a well-known admittance-based control system. There were no significant differences between the two control systems concerning their user experience, velocity profiles or average cost of transportation. However, the admittance-based control system required a 1.2N lower average interaction force to maintain the 1m/s target speed (p = 0.002). Metabolic data also indicated that smart walker-assisted gait could considerably reduce the metabolic demand of walking with a four-legged walker.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207