MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125205873 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2005.1615605

An Intelligent Assistive Robotic Manipulator

2005· article· en· W2125205873 on OpenAlexaff
Farzam Farahmand, Mahsa T. Pourazad, Zahra Moussavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceObject (grammar)GRASPComputer visionArtificial intelligenceOrientation (vector space)Robotic armRobotPosition (finance)Rotation (mathematics)Point (geometry)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the design of an automatic and intelligent robot arm for object grasping for people on wheelchair with mild to severe disabilities. The system is equipped with stereovision detection in order to distinguish different objects from the background. The robot arm has been designed with 6 degrees of action to grasp the detected object from the floor and bring it in front of the user. Two precalibrated digital cameras, facing downward, simultaneously take pictures of the surface where the object is located. Then by applying a new and robust 3D object detection method, the height, location and orientation of the object with respect to the robot's base point are found. The resulting rotation periods are transferred through a designated electronic driver board to the joints' motors via the PC parallel port. Overall, the system detects the object, moves the robot arm to the location of the object, grasps it, moves it to a predefined position in front of the user, releases the object and finally returns to its home position. The system is automatic and is operated by only one command.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207