MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kinematic Optimization and Comparison of Wheelchair-mounted Assistive Robots for Activities of Daily Living

2023· article· en· W4386631367 on OpenAlexaff
Elias Jose Munoz Montenegro, Md Samiul Haque Sunny, Javier Sanjuan, Brahim Brahmi, Jawhar Ghommam, Maarouf Saad, Helal Uddin Ahmed, Mohammad Habibur Rahman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureCollege Ahuntsic
FundersAdministration for Community LivingAustralian GovernmentNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation ResearchU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsWheelchairRobotWorkspaceKinematicsActivities of daily livingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceCover (algebra)SimulationPhysical therapyMedicineEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of wheelchair users has increased at an alarming rate throughout the last decade due to the increased number of individuals with upper/lower extremity dysfunctions resulting from a stroke, spinal cord injury, trauma, accident, or workplace injuries. Wheelchair-mounted assistive robots have been playing an important role in assisting the activities of daily living (ADLs) of these individuals. This research focuses on the design optimization of wheelchair-mounted assisted robots for essential ADLs. The genetic algorithm (GA) was used to estimate the link length parameters of 5 degrees of freedom (DoFs), 6DoFs, and 7DoFs wheelchair-mounted robots to cover the seven workspaces commonly used in ADLs. The objective function used in the GA includes singularity avoidance, collision avoidance, and ADL coverage. The results show that the proposed optimized 5DoFs robot can cover 25%, 6 DoFs robot can cover 69%, and 7 DoFs robot can cover 71% of essential ADL workspaces.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207