An experimental investigation on push force and its perception during a flexible hose insertion task encountered in a truck assembly line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The push force and its perception when inserting a flexible hose laterally into a connector were investigated. Effects of hose diameter, glove, target position and obstacle condition were studied. Maximum voluntary insertion forces (MVFs) under similar working conditions were also measured. The larger the diameter, the higher the force required. The peak axial forces for the hoses of 6, 12 and 16 mm in diameter were on average respectively 94, 122 and 184 N, representing 45%, 61% and 93% of MVF. Glove condition, target position and obstacle did not significantly affect the axial insertion force and moment, but they did affect effort perception. Lower effort was perceived with gloves and high and near position. High intra- and inter-individual variability in insertion force for a given hose may suggest that feedback of successful insertion was insufficient. The recognition of a successful insertion must be ensured to avoid unnecessary extra force exertion. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: The effects of glove, hose diameter, target location and obstacle on push force and its perception were studied when inserting a flexible hose. Solutions for improving the recognition of a successful insertion and the hose/connector system design must be found to reduce force exertion to safe levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".