MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736763384 · doi:10.20286/jeas.v3i2.19

Safety Assessment for Industrial Robots

2016· article· en· W2736763384 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farzad Gerami, Fatemeh Ebrahimi, Mohammad Reza Naderi, Mir Emad Aghaei

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotReliability (semiconductor)Markov chainRisk analysis (engineering)Work (physics)Computer scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The safety and reliability of robots, like other engineering products, have been considered as important issues in many countries since the growing robot technology entered the industry. An industrial robot must be safe and reliable so that it does not lead to unsafe situations and high maintenance expenses. The growing application of industrial robots in some of the industries of Iran, and the nature of their activities (vast work environment, unpredictable movements, and the nature of controlling its computer program) will create a unique challenge in occupational safety. Consecutive failures of a robot will cause an industry to suffer from great expenses. This study seeks to develop a safety analysis model for industrial robots. Due to the importance of this issue and the dearth of studies done in this regard, this study intended to develop a safety analysis model for industrial robots based on Markov chain. Then, this model was applied to the robots in Haierplast Company; and finally, the results were analyzed. The findings of this study include the computation of danger rate, probabilities, reliability, the average of failure time, and the repair rate of the safety system of robots. Keywords: robot safety, reliability, severity-frequency index of an event

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 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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNova Journal of Engineering and Applied SciencesSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207