MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524241018 · doi:10.1177/1729881416658167

Modeling of physical human–robot interaction

2016· article· en· W2524241018 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTeleoperation and Haptic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdmittanceComputer sciencePayload (computing)RobotController (irrigation)Transparency (behavior)SimulationHuman–robot interactionVibrationControl engineeringHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enhancement of human performance using an intelligent assist device is becoming more common. In order to achieve effective augmentation of human capacity, cooperation between human and robot must be safe and very intuitive. Ensuring such collaboration remains a challenge, especially when admittance control is used. This paper addresses the issues of transparency and human perception coming from vibration in admittance control schemes. Simulation results obtained with our suggested improved model using an admittance controller are presented, then four models using transfer functions are discussed in detail and evaluated as a means of simulating physical human–robot interaction using admittance control. The simulation and experimental results are then compared in order to assess the validity and limitations of the proposed models in the case of a four-degree-of-freedom intelligent assist device designed for large payload.

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 score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · 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