Detecting Safety Anomalies in pHRI Activities via Force Myography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential application of using a wearable force myography (FMG) band for monitoring the occupational safety of a human participant working in collaboration with an industrial robot was studied. Regular physical human-robot interactions were considered as activities of daily life in pHRI (pHRI-ADL) to recognize human-intended motions during such interactions. The force myography technique was used to read volumetric changes in muscle movements while a human participant interacted with a robot. Data-driven models were used to observe human activities for useful insights. Using three unsupervised learning algorithms, isolation forest, one-class SVM, and Mahalanobis distance, models were trained to determine pHRI-ADL/regular, preset activities by learning the latent features' distributions. The trained models were evaluated separately to recognize any unwanted interactions that differed from the normal activities, i.e., anomalies that were novel, inliers, or outliers to the normal distributions. The models were able to detect unusual, novel movements during a certain scenario that was considered an unsafe interaction. Once a safety hazard was detected, the control system generated a warning signal within seconds of the event. Hence, this study showed the viability of using FMG biofeedback to indicate risky interactions to prevent injuries, improve occupational health, and monitor safety in workplaces that require human participation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".