MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Differential Magnetic Force Sensing for Ultrasound Teleoperation

2023· article· en· W4386159151 on OpenAlexaff
David Black, Amir Hossein Hadi Hosseinabadi, Nicholas Rangga Pradnyawira, M. J. van de Pol, Mika Nogami, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorqueTeleoperationHaptic technologyDeflection (physics)MagnetComputer scienceAcousticsMagnetic fieldSimulationControl theory (sociology)RobotPhysicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringOpticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-profile, low-cost force/torque sensing is important in many applications. It can enable haptic feedback, performance evaluation, training, data collection, and teleoperation of ultrasound procedures. In this paper we introduce a new concept of differential magnetic field based multi-axis force sensing. A magnet is separated from two adjacent Hall effect sensors by a flexible suspension. The differential signal from the two sensors allows precise deflection measurement, and combining several of these on a compliant structure enables multi-axis force sensing. The concept is motivated, described, simulated, and tested. In initial experiments, the best-case deflection resolution is found to be 856 nm, with full-scale range of 1.5 mm and a root-mean-square force/torque error of 10.37% compared to an off-the-shelf sensor. This paper demonstrates the feasibility and potential of this force sensing mechanism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207