MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577484822 · doi:10.1109/lra.2017.2651945

Modeling Grasp Motor Imagery Through Deep Conditional Generative Models

2017· article· en· W2577484822 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Veres, Medhat Moussa, Graham W. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsGRASPComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenerative modelProcess (computing)Generative grammarObject (grammar)Task (project management)Action (physics)Human–computer interactionDeep learningMachine learningEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grasping is a complex process involving knowledge of the object, the surroundings, and of oneself. While humans are able to integrate and process all of the sensory information required for performing this task, equipping machines with this capability is an extremely challenging endeavor. In this paper, we investigate how deep learning techniques can allow us to translate high-level concepts such as motor imagery to the problem of robotic grasp synthesis. We explore a paradigm based on generative models for learning integrated object-action representations and demonstrate its capacity for capturing and generating multimodal multifinger grasp configurations on a simulated grasping dataset.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207