Digital Twin-Based Biofeedback Controlling of Human-Cobot Interaction Upon a Manufacturing Application
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cobots (collaborative robots) are widely exploited in the manufacturing industry as smart assistants in proximity to human operators. The race towards mass automation brought by the fourth industrial revolution has made the safety of humans a widely discussed topic. Industrial guidelines have been introduced to accommodate this change in the manufacturing industry for better use of cobots without compromising human safety. Built-in safety is encouraged to be incorporated from the cobot programming stage itself to facilitate this safe collaborative environment. To achieve that, research is being done to train the cobots with various contact avoidance algorithms. Mitigating productivity loss while the cobots are in these trained safe operating modes, has been identified as a requirement by the researchers to take real advantage of collaborative workspaces. To address this requirement, the authors are proposing a novel cobot-controlling algorithm for human-cobot interaction by considering the biofeedback of the human operator. The proposed algorithm is part of a model workcell development which will be remotely controlled using a digital twin platform.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it