MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947876972 · doi:10.1080/14606925.2019.1594977

Considering Haptic Feedback Systems for A Livable Space Suit

2019· article· en· W2947876972 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Design Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Exploration and Technology
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthMarshall Space Flight Center
KeywordsHaptic technologySpace (punctuation)Human–computer interactionComputer scienceEngineeringSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper explores protective equipment for work in extreme environments manifested in a proposal for a haptic feedback system for astronauts. It follows the thesis that the safety of astronauts wearing Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) suits, whether in space or on planetary surfaces, is connected to their ability to interact with their environments, their equipment and suits, and their coworkers. The project emphasises the use of new technologies to enhance the quality of said interactions. Focusing on manned exploration and construction activity in space, qualitative research methods are employed to gain an overview of the factors that dictate work in space, endeavours in design and architecture for space, and research into the ways humans interact with their surroundings. Lastly, a conceptual prototype was made to explore the possibilities of exploring a language of haptic feedback to complement other systems and to mediate the sensory filters imposed by the modern space suit.

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.

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 score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.181 · 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