MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390056460 · doi:10.3389/frobt.2023.1271337

It’s not what you think: shaping beliefs about a robot to influence a teleoperator’s expectations and behavior

2023· article· en· W4390056460 on OpenAlex
Daniel J. Rea, James E. Young

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Robotics and AI · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotRobustness (evolution)PerceptionComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceBehavior-based roboticsMobile robotSimulationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a novel design approach for shaping a teleoperator's expectations and behaviors when teleoperating a robot. Just as how people may drive a car differently based on their expectations of it (e.g., the brakes may be poor), we assert that teleoperators may likewise operate a robot differently based on expectations of robot capability and robustness. We present 3 novel interaction designs that proactively shape teleoperator perceptions, and the results from formal studies that demonstrate that these techniques do indeed shape operator perceptions, and in some cases, measures of driving behavior such as changes in collisions. Our methods shape operator perceptions of a robot's speed, weight, or overall safety, designed to encourage them to drive more safely. This approach shows promise as an avenue for improving teleoperator effectiveness without requiring changes to a robot, novel sensors, algorithms, or other functionality.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.267 · 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