MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296103509 · doi:10.3389/frobt.2022.965113

Editorial: Haptic training simulation, volume II

2022· editorial· en· W4296103509 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaojun Chen, Arnaud Lelevé, Troy McDaniel, Carlos Rossa

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Robotics and AI · 2022
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTeleoperation and Haptic Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHaptic technologyVolume (thermodynamics)RobotTraining (meteorology)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haptic training simulation, volume IIHaptic training simulation (Lelevé et al., 2020) usually deals with kinesthetic feedback.This second edition explores complementary approaches in the medical domain (as in He et al. (2022) specifically for tissue examination), to provide realistic feedback and objective assessment to trainees during their training.Thus, Dragunasu et al. and Rørvik et al. introduce novel tactile devices while Gautier et al. propose to equip practice boxes with a vision system to enable objective assessment.From an complementary point of view, Jourdes et al. propose to train on surgical robots that do not provide haptic feedback using visual feedback (Bresler et al., 2020).Simulating effective haptic feedback in a virtual environment is a challenging problem that involves a myriad of design considerations.To improve the wearability of such devices, primary design considerations involve optimizing the footprint of the actuating mechanism on the skin and the number of actuators used to simulate haptic feedback.Using parallel actuation mechanisms to solve the problem of achieving efficient and relevant force-feedback is an actively researched topic.There have been numerous designs that seek to address this issue, but few that involve the palm of hand.Dragunasu et al. propose a novel design for a device that simulates cutaneous feedback at the palm of hand by leveraging grasping biomechanics and using tendon-like mechanical actuation to generate both tangential and normal force feedback at the palm.To show the efficacy of the haptic feedback from the present prototype, the work demonstrates a simple virtual scenario for interacting with objects.Medical palpation training is essential to improve tactile diagnostic skills among professionals, but currently available training equipment lacks commercial viability and richness of tactile stimulation to provide realistic feedback to trainees.To address this problem, it is necessary to effectively simulate the hardness and shape of the

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0130.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.031

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Robotics and AISame topicTeleoperation and Haptic SystemsFrench-language works237,207