MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070954554 · doi:10.1115/detc2010-28674

Social Intelligence for a Task-Driven Assistive Robot

2010· article· en· W2070954554 on OpenAlexaff
Goldie Nejat, Maurizio Ficocelli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Human–computer interactionRobotComputer scienceSocial robotControl (management)Human–robot interactionArchitectureTask analysisArtificial intelligenceRobot controlMobile robotEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of a socially assistive robot is to create a close and effective interaction with a human user for the purpose of giving assistance. In particular, the social interaction, guidance and support that a socially assistive robot can provide a person can be very beneficial to patient-centered care. However, there are a number of conundrums that must be addressed in designing such a robot. This work addresses one of the main limitations in the development of intelligent task-driven socially assistive robots: Robotic control architecture design and implementation with explicit social and assistive task functionalities. In particular, in this paper, a unique emotional behavior module is presented and implemented in a learning-based control architecture for human-robot interactions (HRI). The module is utilized to determine the appropriate emotions of the robot, as motivated by the well-being of the person, during assistive task-driven interactions. A novel online updating technique is used in order to allow the emotional model to adapt to new people and scenarios. Preliminary experiments presented show the effectiveness of utilizing robotic emotional assistive behavior during HRI in assistive scenarios.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.368 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207