MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095111411

Game Research at McGill Navigating Social Spaces

2012· article· en· W7095111411 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProxemicsRobotMotion (physics)Space (punctuation)Social robotSocial force modelFunction (biology)Human–robot interactionMovement (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behaviour of robots within a human-populated space can be disruptive, as robot motion does not necessarily conform to social norms. Typical movement models are oblivious to social expectations, and so easily violate personal space and other social rules, magnifying the unnatu-ral behaviour of robot agents and causing discomfort to human occupants. This paper presents a navigation algorithm that incorporates human proxemics into a modified Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT) algorithm. Our Socially-Realistic RRT algorithm (SRRRT) includes both a cost function based on a realistic model of human interaction distances, as well as a human motion model in order to produce movement patterns that better integrate with human so-cial behaviour. We experiment with our algorithm in simulation, comparing it with both a naive RRT and an A * implementation in both static and dynamic movement contexts. SRRRT demonstrates quantifiably better paths in terms of social cost, while maintaining a simple and easily extensible implementation design. Inclusion of such a design in robot motion enables more socially transparent behaviour, improving the ability of humans and robots in real or virtual contexts to coexist. 1

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)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→