MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979360055 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2019.8861780

A Brief Review on Robotic Grippers Classifications

2019· review· en· W2979360055 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

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrippersRobotProcess (computing)Computer scienceRobot manipulatorArtificial intelligenceRobot end effectorSelection (genetic algorithm)Manipulator (device)Control engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manipulators are used for various applications to make tasks easier or decrease the risk of tasks deemed impossible, dangerous or difficult for humans. A robotic manipulator can be equipped with different types of end effectors to perform diverse tasks. Grippers are one of the most commonly-used robot end of arm tools. Depending on the application in hand for the robotic system, various types of grippers are needed. Therefore, selecting the proper one is a significantly important aspect in the design process. To the best knowledge of the authors, there are not enough scholarly research papers focusing on classification for robot grippers. In this paper, a brief review on different categories of grippers are presented. The goal of this paper is to provide a brief informational summary on different classifications, since proper selection of gripper plays a vital role in robot manipulator's efficiency and performance.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.007

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Quick stats

Citations106
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207