A simple design rule for 1st order form-closure of underactuated hands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The property of form-closure of a grasp, as generally defined in the literature, is based on the assumption that contact points between the hand and the object are fixed in space. However, this assumption is false when considering a grasp exerted by an underactuated hand, since in this case, it is not possible to control the position of each phalanx independently. In spite of researchers' interest in studying form-closure, none of the available published work on this subject takes into consideration the particular kinematics of underactuated hands. Actually, there are few available tools to qualify or quantify the stability of a grasp exerted by an underactuated hand, thus the design of underactuated hands mostly results from an intuitive approach. This paper aims to reduce this gap. A classification of underactuated hands is proposed, based on the expression of contact forces. This highlights the influence of non-backdrivable mechanisms introduced in the transmission of the closing motion of the hand on the stability of the grasp. The way to extend the original definition of form-closure to underactuated grasps is illustrated. A more general definition is formulated, which checks the stability of the set "object + hand". Using this new definition, a simple rule is proposed for designing a hand capable of achieving 1st order form-closed grasps. 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".