MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400992218 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2024.070302

Design of Key Technologies for Robot End Effectors

2024· article· en· W4400992218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Technology and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Robot end effectorComputer scienceRobotHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development of automation and intelligence industries, the performance of robot end effectors directly affects the operational efficiency and application range of robot systems, so its research and optimization are particularly crucial. This study first identified the performance bottlenecks and limitations of existing robot end effector designs in different application scenarios through systematic analysis. Then, a new type of actuator prototype was developed using modular design methods, combined with the latest materials science research and mechatronics integration technology. In the experimental verification stage, the effectiveness of the new design was confirmed by comparing and testing the performance of new and old actuators in key performance indicators such as precision, response speed, and load capacity. The average deviation was generally low, mostly between 0.05 and 0.09 millimeters, indicating that the actuator can accurately locate the preset target position in most cases. The value of this study lies in the fact that the proposed end effector design scheme not only improves the operational performance of robots, but also has good universality and adaptability, laying a solid foundation for the future development of robotics technology. These achievements are expected to greatly promote the widespread application of robotics technology in industries such as manufacturing, healthcare, and services, and improve the automation level of the entire 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.313
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence PracticeSame topicIndustrial Technology and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207