MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883511217 · doi:10.1109/thms.2018.2849024

Negotiating Corners With Teleoperated Mobile Robots With Time Delay

2018· article· en· W2883511217 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Cross, Kenneth McIsaac, Bryce Dudley, William Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTeleoperation and Haptic Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanarie
KeywordsTeleoperationMobile robotComputer scienceRobotTeleroboticsReal-time computingSimulationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present the summary of results from a teleoperation study to assess the application of a mobile robot cornering law with the inclusion of a time delay on the returned video stream. The intent is to demonstrate this application to an analogous scenario like teleoperating from Earth a rover at the south Lunar pole. The first experiment compared course completion times for outdoor driving circuits in ideal lighting without time delay, ideal lighting with time delay, and in darkness with time delay and a low-angled spotlight. The second experiment studied cornering times for various time delays and lighting conditions in an indoor setting. The results show that teleoperating a mobile robot with the presence of time delay still complies with the previously developed cornering law. The combined results from the cornering study and the outdoor driving course are interpreted to show that the total time to complete a driving course with a time-delayed video can be predicted based on a known number of turns.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine SystemsSame topicTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsFrench-language works237,207