MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methodology on robot-based complex surface processing using 2D and 3D visual combination

2024· article· en· W4402904321 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Haodong Wu, Ting Zou, Heather Burke, Stephen King, Brian Burke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceRobotArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRobot visionHuman–computer interactionMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the significant development of automated equipment in the seafood industry, including the automated processing equipment for fish and crab, tremendous challenges accompany. Low processing capability for complex seafood surfaces is a paradigm, leading to heavy reliance on manual labor. The research is driven by the urgent need for robotic processing of the complex shape of seafood, which has a promising potential in the processing of objects with random, flexible, and complex shapes. In this paper, we are proposing a novel approach to processing complex surfaces designed for the seafood industry by combining 2D and 3D visual information based on point cloud segmentation. Porcupine crabs—a species of king crab in the family Lithodidae living in the Canadian Atlantic Ocean—have complex surfaces with long, sharp spines and are chosen as the case study. The unique feature of the Porcupine crabs poses substantial challenges to the conventional visual processing method in terms of low accuracy and efficiency. On the other hand, using our method, the crab feature has been successfully recognized and processed by cutting the spines. The robot spine removal tool path is generated based on the extracted spine features. Simulation results using Robot Operating System (ROS) and experimental tests have validated the robustness of the proposed method.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207