MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099054318 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2002.802877

Development of a robotic device for facilitating learning by children who have severe disabilities

2002· article· en· W2099054318 on OpenAlexaff
Al Cook, Mingyuan Meng, Jason Gu, Kathy Howery

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsGlenrose Rehabilitation HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGRASPComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionRobotic armInterface (matter)RobotPointer (user interface)SoftwareLaser pointerControl (management)CognitionArtificial intelligencePsychologySimulationSoftware engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents technical aspects of a robot manipulator developed to facilitate learning by young children who are generally unable to grasp objects or speak. The severity of these physical disabilities also limits assessment of their cognitive and language skills and abilities. The CRS robot manipulator was adapted for use by children who have disabilities. Our emphasis is on the technical control aspects of the development of an interface and communication environment between the child and the robot arm. The system is designed so that each child has user control and control procedures that are individually adapted. Control interfaces include large push buttons, keyboards, laser pointer, and head-controlled switches. Preliminary results have shown that young children who have severe disabilities can use the robotic arm system to complete functional play-related tasks. Developed software allows the child to accomplish a series of multistep tasks by activating one or more single switches. Through a single switch press the child can replay a series of preprogrammed movements that have a development sequence. Children using this system engaged in three-step sequential activities and were highly responsive to the robotic tasks. This was in marked contrast to other interventions using toys and computer games.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations57
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207