MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302290679 · doi:10.4271/2016-01-0337

A Framework for Collaborative Robot (CoBot) Integration in Advanced Manufacturing Systems

2016· article· en· W2302290679 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Djuric, Jill Urbanic, Jeremy L. Rickli

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotManufacturing engineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringEngineeringHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary manufacturing systems are still evolving. The system elements, layouts, and integration methods are changing continuously, and ‘collaborative robots’ (CoBots) are now being considered as practical industrial solutions. CoBots, unlike traditional CoBots, are safe and flexible enough to work with humans. Although CoBots have the potential to become standard in production systems, there is no strong foundation for systems design and development. The focus of this research is to provide a foundation and four tier framework to facilitate the design, development and integration of CoBots. The framework consists of the system level, work-cell level, machine level, and worker level. Sixty-five percent of traditional robots are installed in the automobile industry and it takes 200 hours to program (and reprogram) them. Integrating CoBots has the potential to enhance the abilities of both the robotic and human actors within the system, improving process efficiencies, and adapting to changes. A thorough review of the literature, safety and layout challenges, and contemporary factory automation configurations using solutions that have been introduced to the market will be presented, as well as a roadmap for education and research challenges.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations226
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Materials and ManufacturingSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207