MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065604113 · doi:10.1109/mra.2008.931632

The robotics experience

2009· article· en· W2065604113 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseRoboticsReusabilitySoftware engineeringVariety (cybernetics)Artificial intelligenceSoftwareComputer scienceRobotSystems engineeringEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classical engineering fields have evolved standards and techniques for developing complex systems. For example, both mechanical and electrical engineers have a wide variety of standard components, with defined capabilities, that they can draw upon (e.g., gears, transistors) in the design of complex systems. On the other hand, software engineering has struggled with the basic idea of reusability. Software engineering approaches, such as the use of components [1] that promote the concept of information hiding [2] and the introduction of structured programming languages [3], offer a roadmap to an improved software reuse. Unfortunately, their adoption by robotics researchers has been slow, impeded by the tradition of individual research groups crafting independent and incompatible solutions to common problems.

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.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · 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