A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the requirements for robots in home telecare using two focus groups. The first comprised six healthcare professionals involved in geriatric care and the second comprised six elderly people with disabilities living in the community. The concept of an in-home telepresence robot was illustrated using a photograph of a mobile robot, and participants were then asked to suggest potential health care applications. Interview data derived from the transcript of each group discussion were analyzed using qualitative induction based on content analysis. The analyses yielded statements that were categorized under three themes: potential applications, usability issues and user requirements. Teleoperated mobile robotic systems in the home were thought to be useful in assisting multidisciplinary patient care through improved communication between patients and healthcare professionals, and offering respite and support to caregivers under certain conditions. The shift from a traditional hospital-centred model of care in geriatrics to a home-based model creates opportunities for using telepresence with mobile robotic systems in home telecare.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".