MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325845790 · doi:10.1109/tmech.2016.2551557

A Slip Detection and Correction Strategy for Precision Robot Grasping

2016· article· en· W2325845790 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Stachowsky, Thomas Hummel, Medhat Moussa, Hussein A. Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGRASPSlip (aerodynamics)GrippersRigidity (electromagnetism)KinematicsComputer scienceComputer visionRobotDetectorArtificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)Point (geometry)EngineeringPhysicsMathematicsMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringControl (management)Classical mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a grasp force regulation strategy for precision grasps. The strategy makes no assumptions about object properties and surface characteristics, and can be used with a wide range of grippers. It has two components, a slip signal detector that computes the magnitude of slip and a grasping force set point generator that acts on the detector's output. The force set point generator is designed to ensure that slip is eliminated without using excessive force. This is particularly important in several situations like grasping fragile objects or in-hand manipulation of thin small objects. Several experiments were conducted to simulate various grasping scenarios with different objects. Results show that the strategy was very successful in dealing with uncertainty in object mass, surface characteristics, or rigidity. The strategy is also insensitive to robot motion.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations79
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ASME Transactions on MechatronicsSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207