MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Low-cost Intrinsically Safe Mechanism for Physical Distancing Between Clinicians and Patients

2021· article· en· W3205363519 on OpenAlexaff
Abed Soleymani, Ali Torabi, Mahdi Tavakoli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceWorkloadRisk analysis (engineering)TeleroboticsDistancingHuman–computer interactionSimulationMechanism (biology)Quality (philosophy)Computer securityArtificial intelligenceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the unprecedented workload and cross-infection hazard, the health-care workers’ lives are under a significant threat. However, minimizing the duration and frequency of close clinician-to-patient contacts using simple technologies that enable physical distancing could reduce the risk of spreading the disease. In this context, this paper presents the conceptual design and preliminary assessment of a low-cost and intrinsically safe remote service delivery platform that can assist clinicians in doing various tasks at a safe distance from patients. This mechanism is capable of manipulating objects in three-dimensional Cartesian space and can be adapted to handling a wide variety of medical devices. Moreover, its passive weight-compensating design provides the mechanism with high maneuverability, enhanced dynamic manipulability, and better force feedback quality. The advantages and effectiveness of the proposed mechanism are demonstrated through experiments. In the experiment, an ultrasound probe is mounted at the end effector of the device to perform an imaging task from a safe distance. Due to the existence of the force feedback, the user could remotely manipulate the ultrasound probe for having a successful vertical and pivot scanning to get high-quality images with a low physical and mental demand.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207