MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1839731473 · doi:10.1111/ajag.12154

Smart technologies to enhance social connectedness in older people who live at home

2014· review· en· W1839731473 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal on Ageing · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsSocial connectednessAging in placeInternet privacyGerontologyOlder peoplePsychologyMedicineComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To examine the effectiveness of smart technologies in improving or maintaining the social connectedness of older people living at home. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and critical evaluation of research articles published between 2000 and 2013. Article screening, data extraction and quality assessment (using the Downs and Black checklist) were conducted by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Eighteen publications were identified that evaluated the effect of smart technologies on dimensions of social connectedness. Fourteen studies reported positive outcomes in aspects such as social support, isolation and loneliness. There was emerging evidence that some technologies augmented the beneficial effects of more traditional aged-care services. CONCLUSION: Smart technologies, such as tailored internet programs, may help older people better manage and understand various health conditions, resulting in subsequent improvements in aspects of social connectedness. Further research is required regarding how technological innovations could be promoted, marketed and implemented to benefit older people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.320 · 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