Automated Gripper Jaw Design and Grasp Planning for Sets of 3D Objects
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An algorithm for automatically generating a common jaw design and planning grasps for a given set of polyhedral objects is presented. The algorithm is suitable for a parallel‐jaw gripper equipped with three cylindrical fingers. The common jaw design eliminates the need for custom made grippers and tool changing. The proposed jaw configuration and planning approach reduces the search associated with locating the finger contacts from six degrees‐of‐freedom to one degree‐of‐freedom. Closed‐form algorithms for checking force closure and for predicting jamming are developed. Three quality metrics are introduced to improve the quality of the planned grasps. The first is a measure of the sensitivity of the grasp to errors between the actual and planned finger locations. The second is a measure of the efficiency of the grasp in terms of the contact forces. The third is a measure of the dependence of force closure on friction. These quality metrics are not restricted to cylindrical fingers and can be applied to n finger grasps. Running on a standard PC, the algorithm generated a solution in less than five minutes for a set of five objects with a total of 456 triangular facets. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it