MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008644132 · doi:10.1115/detc2011-47747

Command Strategies for Tele-Operation of Mobile-Manipulator Systems via a Haptic Input Device

2011· article· en· W2008644132 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. Wrock, Scott Nokleby

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTeleoperation and Haptic Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkspaceJoystickHaptic technologyRedundancy (engineering)Mobile manipulatorComputer scienceBase (topology)SimulationParallel manipulatorControl engineeringControl theory (sociology)EngineeringRobotArtificial intelligenceMobile robotControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tele-operation of mobile-manipulator systems (MMS) is typically done by modeling both the manipulator and mobile base as a single system combined with the use of various redundancy resolution techniques to achieve coordinated motion. In this work, the Omnibot MMS is controlled by a 3-DOF (degrees-of-freedom) haptic joystick. The base is a holonomic platform having 3-DOF supporting a 3-DOF manipulator capable of position control within its workspace. By controlling the base and manipulator individually, redundancy resolution techniques are not required because the master has equal DOF to the device it is controlling at any given time. Two command strategies are proposed herein for automatic switching of control between the manipulator and base. The first command strategy is a virtual wall method that uses haptic forces to make the operator feel like they are pushing against a wall at the edge of the manipulator’s workspace, resulting in the base moving. The second command strategy is a two state approach in which each state controls a different device and switching between the two is done by breaking through the workspace limits. With the help of haptic forces, the operator has the sensation of breaking through a compliant surface when switching states. The two proposed strategies were implemented and tested on the Omnibot MMS and both subjective and objective data was used to evaluate and compare the two methods.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsFrench-language works237,207