The need for a paradigm shift in the development of military exoskeletons
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exoskeleton is a body-worn mechanical device designed to work in concert with the user to enhance human capabilities. For the dismounted close combatant, an exoskeleton could be worn whilst performing a variety of complex tasks and duties. As such, there is a requirement for the human and the exoskeleton to readily adapt to different movements in different contexts. There have been many attempts to design an exoskeleton to improve the performance of the complex adaptive human system with limited success. Despite a vast investment in time and resources, exoskeletons have not yet been adopted for operational use by military leadership for use by the dismounted close combatant as they are yet to demonstrate substantive augmentation to individual warfighter and collective team capability. We argue that a major limitation of current exoskeleton systems is their inability to concurrently adapt to the user, task and environment. Unless a device can meet this requirement, it is unlikely to offer a comparative benefit to the dismounted close combatant. This paper will present the state of the art of current exoskeleton technology, and recommend future research necessary to reach an acceptable standard of augmentation and thereby lead to widespread adoption.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it