MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Requirement and User's Needs for Food Serving Robots

2025· article· en· W4408898377 on OpenAlexaff
Behin Elahi, Abhishek Prasad Dalvi, Wint Lae Kyaw, Vincent C. S. Lee, Chanakarn Boonmuen, Alyssa Fileds, Yusof Roshan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsLa Cité Collégiale
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of food serving robots in the hospitality industry presents a significant advancement in enhancing customer service and operational efficiency. By employing Axiomatic Design (AD) principles, this research has identified and addressed key Customer Needs (CNs) and Functional Requirements (FRs), ensuring that these robots can provide a smooth, human-like interaction, quick and accurate service, and a safe dining environment. The systematic approach of AD allows for the effective decomposition of complex requirements into manageable design parameters, ultimately leading to robust and reliable robotic solutions that meet both customer expectations and business objectives. This methodology not only improves customer satisfaction but also facilitates the seamless integration of technological advancements in the food service industry, paving the way for sustainable growth and innovation. In addition, the focus on Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) ensures that the food serving robots are robust, easy to maintain, and supported throughout their lifecycle, addressing key FRs like operational efficiency, safety, user interface, and versatility. The successful deployment of food serving robots relies on a comprehensive approach that integrates AD with R&M principles, emphasizing robust design, ease of maintenance, and user-centric features. This approach ensures that the robots meet the needs of various stakeholders, providing long-term viability and customer satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207