MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399730164 · doi:10.3390/drones8060269

Tendon-Driven Continuum Robots for Aerial Manipulation—A Survey of Fabrication Methods

2024· article· en· W4399730164 on OpenAlex

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

VenueDrones · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotFabricationTendonComputer scienceEngineeringHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerial manipulators have seen a rapid uptake for multiple applications, including inspection tasks and aerial robot–human interaction in building and construction. Whilst single degree of freedom (DoF) and multiple DoF rigid link manipulators (RLMs) have been extensively discussed in the aerial manipulation literature, continuum manipulators (CMs), often referred to as continuum robots (CRs), have not received the same attention. This survey seeks to summarise the existing works on continuum manipulator-based aerial manipulation research and the most prevalent designs of continuous backbone tendon-driven continuum robots (TDCRs) and multi-link backbone TDCRs, thereby providing a structured set of guidelines for fabricating continuum robots for aerial manipulation. With a history spanning over three decades, dominated by medical applications, CRs are now increasingly being used in other domains like industrial machinery and system inspection, also gaining popularity in aerial manipulation. Fuelled by diverse applications and their associated challenges, researchers have proposed a plethora of design solutions, primarily falling within the realms of concentric tube (CT) designs or tendon-driven designs. Leveraging research works published in the past decade, we place emphasis on the preparation of backbones, support structures, tendons, stiffness control, test procedures, and error considerations. We also present our perspectives and recommendations addressing essential design and fabrication aspects of TDCRs in the context of aerial manipulation, and provide valuable guidance for future research and development endeavours in this dynamic field.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.290 · 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