Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multifingered robotic hands, when used as the slave end effectors in teleoperation, have some advan- tages over the conventional parallel jaw grippers. Effec- tive teleoperation of such end effectors raises the prob- lem of using suitable master devices. The most appropri- ate master devices for this purpose are the instrumented gloves and the hand exoskeletons. When using such mas- ter devices, either for telemanipulation of objects or for interacting with virtual worlds, it is crucial to the success of the task that the human operator feels the grasping and manipulating forces exerted by the slave robotic fin- gers. This requires that the slave hand fingertip forces as well as the tactual sensations be fedback to the hu- man operator's fingers via the dexterous master. This paper thus has two goals. The first goal is to iden- tify and analyze some specific requirements on the design of dexterous master devices meant for teleoperating mul- tifingered robotic hands, within this context of finger force feedback. The requirements are of 2 categories: construc- tional and functional. The constructional issues consist of the isomorphism, portability, motion range capabil- ity, and accommodation for human hand size variability. The functional issues consist of the bandwidth compat- ibility with the human hand, which itself has asymmet- ric input/output characteristics, the proprioceptive (force limit) compatibility, and the consideration of the psycho- metric stability of the human hand in sensing force magni- tudes and variations. Also of importance is the sensitivity of the master device that must be more than that of the human hand. Also evaluated in this paper are the 14 existing designs of hand masters to see how well they satisfy the afore stated constructional and functional requirements. Only 6 are capable of feeding back the slave finger forces to that of the operator while none of them completely satisfy all the requirements listed above. Hence described at the end is a new design of a force feedback master aimed at satis- fying the requirements. Its fabrication and experimental demonstration, however, remain to be performed. The second goal of this paper is to evaluate the state-
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".