MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143301563 · doi:10.1109/iecon.1996.571005

Interpretation of mechanical impedance profiles for intelligent control of robotic meat processing

2002· article· en· W2143301563 on OpenAlexaff
Junmin Gu, C.W. de Silva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedanceInterpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceMechanical impedanceRobotControl engineeringControl (management)Impedance controlArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical processing of meat and fish for packaging and marketing may involve the removal of skin, fat, and bones, and the separation of meats of different texture. In an automated processing workcell that employs robots for such purposes, proper sensing and instrumentation would be quite crucial for fast and accurate control of processing operations. In particular, force and mechanical impedance at the interface of a robotic cutter and processed object (meat) would be of significant value. Instrumentation for direct sensing would be costly and may result in a system that is noisy, less robust and sluggish. An approach has been developed where mechanical impedance is sensed by means of a software filter that uses robot/cutter motion and actuator drive current as inputs. The resulting impedance profile has to be interpreted quickly and reliably for cutter control. This paper describes the technique of impedance sensing and high-level interpretation of impedance profiles, as developed by us and implemented in a laboratory robot. Also, a hierarchical control system is described that uses impedance measurements for intelligent control of a meat processing robot. Typical results presented here have been obtained from the laboratory robot.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207