MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324325647 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.06656

Re-evaluating Parallel Finger-tip Tactile Sensing for Inferring Object Adjectives: An Empirical Study

2023· preprint· en· W4324325647 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fangyi Zhang, Peter Corke

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobot Manipulation and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueensland University of TechnologyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsTactile sensorRobotic handObject (grammar)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionHuman–computer interactionRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finger-tip tactile sensors are increasingly used for robotic sensing to establish stable grasps and to infer object properties. Promising performance has been shown in a number of works for inferring adjectives that describe the object, but there remains a question about how each taxel contributes to the performance. This paper explores this question with empirical experiments, leading insights for future finger-tip tactile sensor usage and design.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.003 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicRobot Manipulation and LearningFrench-language works237,207