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
This paper presents the design and optimization of a self-adaptive, a.k.a. underactuated, finger targeted to be used with collaborative robots. Typical robots, whether collaborative or not, mostly rely on standard translational grippers for pickand-place operations. These grippers are constituted from an actuated motion platform on which a set of jaws is rigidly attached. These jaws are often designed to secure a precise and limited range of objects through the application of pinching forces. In this paper, the design of a self-adaptive robotic finger is presented which can be attached to these typical translational gripper to replace the common monolithic jaws and provide the gripper with shape-adaptation capabilities without any control or sensors. A new design is introduced here and specially optimized for collaborative robots. The kinetostatic analysis of this new design is briefly discussed and then followed by the optimization of relevant geometric parameters. Finally, a practical prototype attached to a very common collaborative robot is demonstrated. While the resulting finger design could be attached to any translational gripper, specifically targeting collaborative robots as an application allows for more liberty in the choice of design parameters as will be shown and the optimized parameters that are found take advantage of this property.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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