The design of intelligent in-home assistive technologies: Assessing the needs of older adults with dementia and their caregivers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the needs of older adults with dementia and their family caregivers during Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and the role of intelligent assistive technology (AT) in supporting these needs. Methods An 85 item questionnaire was administered to family caregivers of older adults with dementia exploring: (i) challenging ADL for an older adult with dementia to complete independently, (ii) difficult ADL for a caregiver to assist, (iii) the role of AT supporting ADL completion, and (iv) the features and functions of in-home AT designed to support ADL. Results Respondents (n=106) indicated the person they care for has partial ability to complete ADL, that private tasks (e.g., showering) are difficult to assist, and that AT designed to support ADL must be autonomous, familiar, simple and unobtrusive. Respondents also showed little knowledge of existing AT that support ADL. Conclusions Designers of AT should focus on supporting caregivers and older adults with dementia in the completion of private and personal ADL.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it