MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145738700 · doi:10.1109/robot.2006.1641724

Visual measurement of MEMS microassembly forces using template matching

2006· article· en· W2145738700 on OpenAlexafffund
Yasser H. Anis, James K. Mills, William L. Cleghorn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsDisplacement (psychology)Microelectromechanical systemsMeasure (data warehouse)GRASPComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Process (computing)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceIdentification (biology)GrippersNonlinear systemMechanical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a new visual force sensing method for measuring microforces acting upon the jaws of passive microgrippers used in the assembly of MEMS devices. The importance of force measurement during microassembly is to confirm the microgripper-micropart make a successful grasp and to also protect the microparts and microgripper from excessive forces which may lead to damage during the assembly process. In the proposed approach, the force measurement problem is reduced to a problem of determining the microgripper jaw displacement. A 3-D finite element model is developed to study the relation between the forces and the displacements. The resulting nonlinear force-displacement relationship is fitted into a second degree equation. Computer vision is used to measure the relative displacements of the right and left microgripper jaws with respect to the microgripper base during assembly. Patterns that were introduced to the microgripper during the design phase are used to measure those relative displacements through pattern identification. Two-dimensional pattern identification is performed using normalized cross correlation template matching, to estimate the degree to which the image and pattern are correlated

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207