MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164334229 · doi:10.1109/tepra.2009.5339633

Superquadric obstacle modeling and a danger evaluation method with applications in safe planning for human-safe industrial robots

2009· article· en· W2164334229 on OpenAlexaff
Nima Najmaei, Mehrdad R. Kermani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceObstacleRobotMotion planningRepresentation (politics)Measure (data warehouse)Artificial intelligenceOrientation (vector space)SimulationControl engineeringData miningEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a human body modeling technique, and a safe planning strategy using danger evaluation for robotic manipulators intended for interactions with humans. Such interactive robots are required to have minimum footprint on the shop floor and to be able to work in constrained areas while ensuring the safety of the humans. A new approach is proposed for generating an efficient representation of the human body by considering its dimensions, position, and orientation. This model takes advantage of superquadric functions to represent the human body more realistically than using primitive shapes. By taking advantage of this model, a new measure of danger involved in robot operation is proposed. This approach significantly improves the effectiveness of danger evaluation by considering a more precise body model. The danger index is then used as part of the path planning algorithm to guarantee the safety of operations. The method is evaluated on a CRS-F3 industrial manipulator.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207