MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1548457881

Communication strategies for a computerized caregiver for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease

2012· article· en· W1548457881 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Rudzicz, Rozanne Wilson, Alex Mihailidis, Elizabeth Rochon, Carol Léonard

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)VocabularyComputer sciencePreprocessorConfusionDiseaseNoise (video)Human–computer interactionSpeech recognitionCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMachine learningPsychologyMedicineLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, health care costs associated with aging at home can be prohibitive if individuals require continual or periodic supervision or assistance because of Alzheimer's disease. These costs, normally associated with human caregivers, can be mitigated to some extent given automated systems that mimic some of their functions. In this paper, we present inaugural work towards producing a generic automated system that assists individuals with Alzheimer's to complete daily tasks using verbal communication. Here, we show how to improve rates of correct speech recognition by preprocessing acoustic noise and by modifying the vocabulary according to the task. We conclude by outlining current directions of research including specialized grammars and automatic detection of confusion.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Chapter of the Association for Computational LinguisticsSame topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207