MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078834151 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6091176

Privacy versus autonomy: A tradeoff model for smart home monitoring technologies

2011· review· en· W2078834151 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

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyInternet privacyComputer scienceWireless sensor networkHealth careHome automationComputer securityInformation privacyEmerging technologiesTelecommunicationsComputer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart homes are proposed as a new location for the delivery of healthcare services. They provide healthcare monitoring and communication services, by using integrated sensor network technologies. We validate a hypothesis regarding older adults' adoption of home monitoring technologies by conducting a literature review of articles studying older adults' attitudes and perceptions of sensor technologies. Using current literature to support the hypothesis, this paper applies the tradeoff model to decisions about sensor acceptance. Older adults are willing to trade privacy (by accepting a monitoring technology), for autonomy. As the information captured by the sensor becomes more intrusive and the infringement on privacy increases, sensors are accepted if the loss in privacy is traded for autonomy. Even video cameras, the most intrusive sensor type were accepted in exchange for the height of autonomy which is to remain in the home.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.232
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Quick stats

Citations154
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207