MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061490590 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2011.2176115

Soft Object Deformation Monitoring and Learning for Model-Based Robotic Hand Manipulation

2011· article· en· W2061490590 on OpenAlexaff
Ana-Maria Creţu, Pierre Payeur, Emil M. Petriu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGRASPComputer visionArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Computer sciencePosition (finance)Controller (irrigation)Deformation (meteorology)RobotRobotic handRobotic armPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the design and implementation of a framework that automatically extracts and monitors the shape deformations of soft objects from a video sequence and maps them with force measurements with the goal of providing the necessary information to the controller of a robotic hand to ensure safe model-based deformable object manipulation. Measurements corresponding to the interaction force at the level of the fingertips and to the position of the fingertips of a three-finger robotic hand are associated with the contours of a deformed object tracked in a series of images using neural-network approaches. The resulting model captures the behavior of the object and is able to predict its behavior for previously unseen interactions without any assumption on the object's material. The availability of such models can contribute to the improvement of a robotic hand controller, therefore allowing more accurate and stable grasp while providing more elaborate manipulation capabilities for deformable objects. Experiments performed for different objects, made of various materials, reveal that the method accurately captures and predicts the object's shape deformation while the object is submitted to external forces applied by the robot fingers. The proposed method is also fast and insensitive to severe contour deformations, as well as to smooth changes in lighting, contrast, and background.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics)Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207