MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

1A2-A23 Development of Assistance Robot for Metal Mold Grinding : Comparison of Surface-roughness by the Number of Whetstone in Plane Grinding

2010· article· en· W69380138 on OpenAlexaff
Shunsuke ISSHIKI, Koji SHIBUYA, Hideyuki MATSUNO, Nobuya MARUYAMA, Tadayoshi YAMADA, Suguru MATSUSHITA, Hiroshige KAWACHI

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Proceedings of JSME annual Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (Robomec) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Robotics and Engineering
Canadian institutionsXebec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrindGrindingMoldSurface roughnessSurface finishMechanical engineeringRobotEngineering drawingDevelopment (topology)Materials scienceComputer scienceManufacturing engineeringEngineeringComposite materialArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims at the construction of a robotic system that can precisely grind metal molds instead of skilled persons. For example, in case of plastic products like cellular phones, the surface-roughness must be from about 0.1 to 0.03 micrometers. Usually, it takes seven to eight hours for rough grinding and two to three hours for finishing grinding even if a skilled person grinds, which costs a lot of money. Development of an automatic grinding system will reduce the costs. Therefore, the goal of this study is to develop such a system. We use an industrial robot with six joints, and soft and ceramic whetstone to grind molds. We conducted some basic experiment and found that the robot can grind the mold as smooth as human to some extent.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Proceedings of JSME annual Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (Robomec)Same topicEducational Robotics and EngineeringFrench-language works237,207