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 II Haptic training simulation (Lelev 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 Rrvik 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).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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