Search results

A simultaneous solution to the localization and mapping problem of a graph‐like environment by a swarm of robots requires solutions to task coordination and map merging. The purpose of this paper is to examine the performance of two different map‐merging strategies.

Building a representation of the environment is a key problem in robotics where the problem is known as simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). When large groups of robots operate within the environment, the SLAM problem becomes complicated by issues related to coordination of the elements of the swarm and integration of the environmental representations obtained by individual swarm elements. This paper considers these issues within the formalism of a group of simulated robots operating within a graph‐like environment. Starting at a common node, the swarm partitions the unknown edges of the known graph and explores the graph for a pre‐arranged period. The swarm elements then meet at a particular time and location to integrate their partial world models. This process is repeated until the entire world has been mapped. A correctness proof of the algorithm is presented, and different coordination strategies are compared via simulation.

The paper demonstrates that a swarm of identical robots, each equipped with its own marker, and capable of simple sensing and action abilities, can explore and map an unknown graph‐like environment. Moreover, experimental results show that exploration with multiple robots can provide an improvement in exploration effort over a single robot and that this improvement does not scale linearly with the size of the swarm.

The paper represents efforts toward exploration and mapping in a graph‐like world with robot swarms. The paper suggests several extensions and variations including the development of adaptive partitioning and rendezvous schedule strategies to further improve both overall swarm efficiency and individual robot utilization during exploration.

The novelty associated with this paper is the formal extension of the single robot graph‐like exploration of Dudek et al. to robot swarms. The paper here examines fundamental limits to multiple robot SLAM and does this within a topological framework. Results obtained within this topological formalism can be readily transferred to the more traditional metric representation.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze a group of disabled students’ views and feelings on disclosing the nature of their impairments by applying via Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS, 2016), using a numerical coding system. The adequacy of “disability” categories on both university and UCAS forms, and related sensitive issues will be central to this paper.

Thus, the author will visit the debates surrounding the two contrasting models of “disability”, namely, the individual medical and the social model of “disability”. The associated advantages and disadvantages that are ensued will be examined.

This paper will conclude by offering inclusive solutions to disclosure, which are sensitive to both impairment and cultural-related issues and encourage disclosure from students with a wide range of impairments. The benefits of all-encompassing inclusive practice and the resulting wider implications for the student population at large will, therefore, be highlighted.

There is an acute shortage of similar kinds of research conducted on disabled international students’ experiences of disclosure, which make the current work timely and original.

Today's museums seek to be more representative of the social diversity of the communities they serve. Their intention is reflected not only in the exhibitions and public programs they offer, but also in the development of their collections and their uses. The colonial origins of the collections and the gaps in the major art historical narratives that have provided their primary interpretations are more widely recognized. Several recent initiatives are revisiting, for inclusion purposes, the principles of exemplarity, uniqueness, internal organization, and material integrity on which acquisition and its valorization were until recently based. This chapter considers current initiatives undertaken over the past 10 years by the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, the National Gallery of Canada, and the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec, in the development and use of their collections. It is done by taking as support three strategies established by Maura Reilly (2018) to foster inclusion in exhibitions. These three strategies – areas of study, revisionism, polylogue – are loosely adapted for collections. The four museums were selected for (1) the interest of their initiatives, (2) the complementarity of these institutions, in terms of collecting scope (contemporary, national, or “encyclopedic”), institutional status (major museums, two provincial, one federal, one nonprofit) and location (in major cities, metropolis, or capital city), and their partnership in the “New Uses of Collections in Art Museums” Partnership (SSHRC 2021–2028) of the CIÉCO Research and Inquiry Group. This portrait, through the collections of four institutions, is paradigmatic of a fundamental transformation in Canadian art museums.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.