On the feasibility and suitability of MR and ER based actuators in human friendly manipulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For several decades now, the robotics industry has postulated the emergence of a new breed of manipulators capable of safely interacting with humans. The integration of robots into human environments has always possessed a unique set of challenges. The primary concern has always been for the safety of the human coworkers. Insuring their safety has led to the desire to design manipulators with intrinsic safety characteristics. Specifically, it is noted that modern `human-safe' manipulators are successful if they have minimized both their weight and reflected actuator inertia. The leading research accomplishing this relies on complex actuation systems. Such systems commonly suffer from degraded performance and high cost of development. Magneto- and electro-rheological fluids are a class of smart-materials that can instantaneously, and reversibly alter their rheological properties under the influence of an applied field. Devices developed with such fluids are known to possess superior torque-to-inertia characteristics over conventional servo systems. Moreover, their simple mechanical construction suggests that manipulators using such devices could be developed at a lower cost. In this paper, we will discuss the potential benefits rheological fluids can bring to the field of human friendly manipulators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".