Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robots are becoming more prevalent in our daily lives. As robots become more common in society, we must understand how people react and interact with them. This study leverages Boston Dynamics' Spot robot to examine human responses to quadruped robots. Previous studies had Spot walking alongside participants at fixed speeds, independent of their gait. Improving upon this method, I developed a program that enables Spot to detect and follow fiducial markers (AprilTags). Using the Robot Operating System (ROS), the depth and position of the tag within the camera’s frame were extracted and translated into motion commands for the robot. The tag is attached to an apparatus on the hip that extends the tag near the subject’s knee, allowing Spot to track the participant’s trunk speed and maintain a consistent distance, offering a more adaptive walking experience. The program allows for variations in the acceleration, height, and camera selection (front/back, left/right) through a custom Graphical User Interface (GUI), allowing for diverse trial conditions. Extensive testing identified considerations to optimize the walking experience. Factors included gradual acceleration to allow Spot to react and maintain detections, and the set requirement to run only a single camera at a time for optimized processing. Additionally, keeping the tag unobstructed and square to the camera is critical to avoid failures in detection. Overall, Spot's new capabilities will assist in further studies of human and robot interactions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".