Cooperative Robotic Fabrication for a Circular Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a cooperative robotic fabrication (CRF) framework, multiple industrial robots are specifically sequenced to work together, thus allowing them to execute coordinated processes with greater geometric and structural variation. In the context of the construction industry, agents in a cooperative setup can perform complementary functions such as placing or removing building components while simultaneously providing temporary support to a structure. This approach can reduce, or completely remove, the need for temporary external supports and scaffolding that would typically be required for stability during the construction of geometrically complex spanning spatial structures. For a circular economy, this means overall reductions to primary resource inputs and improvements to the disassembly, reuse, and reassembly potential of a structure at the end of its life. This chapter gives a summary of three projects that successfully demonstrate the use of cooperative robotic fabrication to promote several principles of a circular economy through different scaffold-free construction applications. The topics covered in this chapter will be of interest to researchers and professionals interested in the emergent intersection of digital fabrication, robotics, and sustainability applied to the building industry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".