MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138302254 · doi:10.22260/isarc2013/0022

Development of Fail-Safety System for Building Wall Cleaning Robot

2013· article· en· W2138302254 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotShock (circulatory)Work (physics)EngineeringComputer scienceSimulationReal-time computingMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of Fail-Safety System for Building Wall Cleaning Robot J. Huh, S. M. Moon, S. W. Hwang, S. M. Yoon, D. Hong Pages 206-212 (2013 Proceedings of the 30th ISARC, Montréal, Canada, ISBN 978-1-62993-294-1, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Recently, there is growing trend to build the high-rise and install curtain walls. Following this trend, we developed robot for building wall cleaning work, which moves along Built-in guide rail of building. Because it moves attached at building wall for cleaning work, it can be seriously affected by potential threats, like earthquake, strong wind, malfunction, and construction error of built-in guide rail. In order to cope with those threats actively, this paper presents the Fail-Safety system. The building wall cleaning robot consists of two moving system: The Horizontal Moving System which mainly do maintenance work, and The Vertical Climbing System which transport the horizontal moving system floor by floor. We apply the Fail-Safety system to these systems. The Fail-Safety system consists of sensors to detect external situation, and, with information of sensors, give instruction for what to do. This robot system is installed with four kinds of sensors: shock sensor, infrared ray sensor, laser sensor, magnetic sensor. First, shock sensor detects external shock during cleaning work. When shock sensor detects big shock, the robot returns to starting point to inspect how damaged it is. Second, infrared ray sensor detects damage of built-in guide rail. It is to prevent destruction of robot caused by moving along damaged rail. Third, laser sensor gives notice about where obstacle is. It is for robot to avoid crash with obstacle and decrease damage. Fourth, magnetic sensor detects magnetic points, which are installed in rail at regular intervals, and helps robot to find its position, based on location of magnetic points detected. If robot is damaged by external shock and its encoder, which gives information of location to it, is not working, magnetic sensor will give information of robot’s location to robot. And then, robot regulates its velocity depending on position of it, and safely returns to starting point. The Fail-Safety system in this paper is for building wall cleaning robot to sense external threats, and prevent getting worse. Applied to this active protection system, making safe environment of maintenance work is possible for robot system. Keywords: Building wall cleaning, Fail-Safety DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2013/0022 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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