MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038499305 · doi:10.1145/3433637

Formalizing and guaranteeing human-robot interaction

2021· preprint· en· W3038499305 on OpenAlexaff
Hadas Kress‐Gazit, Kerstin Eder, Guy Hoffman, Henny Admoni, Brenna Argall, Rüdiger Ehlers, Christoffer Heckman, Nils Jansen, Ross A. Knepper, Jan Křetínský, Shelly Levy‐Tzedek, Jamy Li, Todd D. Murphey, Laurel D. Riek, Dorsa Sadigh

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the ACM · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsRobotComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionHuman–robot interactionField (mathematics)DroneAction (physics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As robots begin to interact closely with humans, we need to build systems worthy of trust regarding the safety and quality of the interaction.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the ACMSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207