Human–Machine Interface for Robotic Surgery and Stereotaxy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While considerable technology has been integrated into the operating room, until recently, the actual performance of surgery has seen relatively few changes, relying mainly on hand-eye coordination. This paper outlines the development and composition as well as the requirements and reasoning that lead to the human-machine interface on neuroArm, a telerobotic surgical system. A critical component of the system was the workstation, where information was provided to and received from the operator. The surgeon controls the robotic system using two force-feedback hand controllers based on visual information from a stereoscopic viewing device and two liquid crystal displays. Two touch screens allow the user to monitor and control the settings of the robot and to view and manipulate 3-D MR images. Audio feedback from the surgical site and the operating room staff is also provided by a wireless communication system. The workstation components were chosen not only to recreate the sight, sound, and touch of surgery but also to facilitate the integration of surgeons with advanced imaging and robotic technologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it