MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086158429 · doi:10.5194/ms-1-19-2010

Towards the design of a prosthetic underactuated hand

2010· article· en· W2086158429 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Thierry Laliberté, Mathieu Baril, F. Guay, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUnderactuationThumbKinematicsMechanism (biology)EngineeringMechanism designComputer scienceSimulationArtificial intelligenceRobotMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper presents recent advances in the design of an underactuated hand for applications in prosthetics. First, the design of the fingers is addressed. Based on previous experiments with prototypes developed in the past, new tendon routings are proposed that lead to a more effective transmission of the forces. A novel elastic tendon routing is also proposed for the passive opening of the hand. A simplified static analysis of the fingers is proposed to support the results. Then, a new kinematic design of the thumb is presented. The thumb is designed to perform out-of-the-plane motions in order to broaden the variety of possible grasps. A mechanism for the implementation of underactuation between the fingers is proposed that alleviates the friction problems encountered in earlier hand designs. Finally, a prototype of the hand is briefly described and typical grasps are shown. This paper was presented at the IFToMM/ASME International Workshop on Underactuated Grasping (UG2010), 19 August 2010, Montréal, Canada.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical sciencesSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207