MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145392243 · doi:10.1109/robot.1996.506912

Limited mobility grasps for fixtureless assembly

2002· article· en· W2145392243 on OpenAlexaff
W.J. Plut, Gary M. Bone

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Object (grammar)Convergence (economics)Computer visionComputer scienceRobot end effectorPlane (geometry)Artificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Orientation (vector space)Sensitivity (control systems)RobotTopology (electrical circuits)AlgorithmMathematicsGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel approach to grasping with an end effector for the purposes of fixtureless assembly is presented. The grasping strategy is based on having the final position of the contacts determined by specific regions of the object geometry. The fingers are placed within limited spaces of the object and moved using frictionless contacts until motion ceases. The limited spaces usually take the form of concave edges or holes in the object. This strategy allows the positioning error to be determined by the accuracy of the part and is independent of the accuracy of the robotic manipulator. A new method for finding form closure is introduced based on maximizing the distances between contacts. The grasping strategy allows deterministic positioning of the object and also provides a means of convergence to these holding points. Testing was done in the plane with three fingers for several cases to show the sensitivity of the grasps to part geometry. The results show the position error is dependent on local shape and was reduced from 1 mm to 0.1 mm for several cases.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207