MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564349480 · doi:10.1109/iros.2016.7759042

Development of a low-cost ultra-tiny line laser range sensor

2016· article· en· W2564349480 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangyu Chen, Moju Zhao, Lingzhu Xiang, Fumihito Sugai, Hiroaki Yaguchi, Kei Okada, Masayuki Inaba

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceLine (geometry)LaserImage sensorCalibrationPixelElectro-optical sensorArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOpticsMaterials scienceEngineeringElectronic engineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To enable robotic sensing for tasks with requirements on weight, size, and cost, we develop an ultra-tiny line laser range sensor based on the Time-of-Flight (TOF) principle. With delicate circuit design and optical attachments, we create a sensor as small as 35[mm] × 27[mm] × 30[mm] and as light as 20[g]. The line sensor samples 272 pixels (256 effective pixels) uniformly distributed within the measurement field of view customizable using different laser lenses. The optimal measurement range of the sensor is 0.05[m] ~ 2[m]. Higher sampling rates can be achieved with a shorter range. The sensor can also extend its range to 3[m] with reduced accuracy. We model the overall errors of the sensor and formulate calibration methods, achieving repeatable accuracy and measurement bias both within 2[cm] with our tested ambient lighting conditions and measurement ranges. The sensor is applicable to range sensing tasks including humanoid hand-eye measurement, UAV safe landing, tiny robot range sensing, and object detection.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207