MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901647463 · doi:10.3390/ecsa-5-05751

Real-Time Posture Control for a Robotic Manipulator Using Natural Human–Computer Interaction

2018· article· en· W2901647463 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Plouffe, Pierre Payeur, Ana-Maria Creţu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInverse kinematicsKinematicsRobotic armPosition (finance)Robot end effectorComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRobot kinematicsRobotInterface (matter)GestureForward kinematicsRobot controlInverse dynamicsControl theory (sociology)Control (management)Mobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a vision-based recognition approach to control the posture of a robotic arm with three degrees of freedom (DOF) using static and dynamic human hand gestures. Two different methods are investigated to intuitively control a robotic arm posture in real-time using depth data collected by a Kinect sensor. In the first method, the user's right index fingertip position is mapped to compute the inverse kinematics on the robot. Using the Forward And Backward Reaching Inverse Kinematics (FABRIK) algorithm, the inverse kinematics (IK) solutions are displayed in a graphical interface. Using this interface and his left hand, the user can intuitively browse and select a desired robotic arm posture. In the second method, the user's left index position and direction are respectively used to determine the end-effector position and an attraction point position. The latter enables the control of the robotic arm posture. The performance of these realtime natural human control approaches is evaluated for precision and speed against static and dynamic obstacles.

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)0.000
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 score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207