MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313600399 · doi:10.1115/detc2010-28933

Static Analysis of Single-Input/Multiple-Output Tendon-Driven Underactuated Mechanisms for Robotic Hands

2010· article· en· W2313600399 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsUnderactuationPulleyComputer scienceMechanism (biology)Control engineeringControl theory (sociology)RobotEngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering the many advantages of underactuation in anthropomorphic hands, such as lightness, ease of control and compactness, it is of interest to develop mechanisms that aim at achieving underactuation between the fingers. This paper presents several tendon-driven underactuated mechanisms that can drive four outputs from one input. These mechanisms could typically be used to drive four fingers of an underactuated hand from a single input. Among these mechanisms, some are built by combining one-input/two-output differential mechanisms, while others are fully integrated systems of pulleys. For each mechanism, a static analysis is presented. Then, a discussion based on the static analysis and experimentation on models highlights their strengths and weaknesses. Finally a new anthropomorphic hand used as an experimental platform to test these mechanisms is introduced.

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 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 score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207