MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104449686 · doi:10.1109/ist.2006.1650768

Neural Network Mapping and Clustering of Elastic Behavior from Tactile and Range Imaging for Virtualized Reality Applications

2006· article· en· W2104449686 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana-Maria Creţu, Emil M. Petriu, Pierre Payeur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisArtificial neural networkElasticity (physics)Artificial intelligenceTactile sensorRange (aeronautics)Computer visionEngineeringMaterials scienceRobotAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract—To fully reach its potential, virtualized reality needs to go beyond the modeling of rigid bodies and introduce accurate representations of deformable objects. This paper explores neural networks and vision-based and tactile measurement strategies to investigate the intricate processes of acquisition and mapping of properties characterizing deformable objects. An original com-posite neural network framework is applied to guide the tactile probing by clustering measurements representing uniform elastic-ity regions and, therefore, direct sensors toward areas of elasticity transitions where higher sampling density is required. The net-work characterizes the relationship between surface deformation and forces that are exemplified in nonrigid bodies. Beyond serving as a planner for the acquisition of measurements, the proposed composite neural architecture allows the encoding of the complex force/deformation relationship without the need for sophisticated mathematical modeling tools. Experimental results prove the va-lidity and the feasibility of the proposed approach. Index Terms—Deformable objects, elasticity modeling, neural networks, probing guidance, range imaging, tactile sensing. I.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207