MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147353766 · doi:10.1109/hisb.2011.43

Towards Aging-in-Place: Automatic Assessment of Product Usability for Older Adults with Dementia

2011· article· en· W2147353766 on OpenAlexaff
Babak Taati, Jasper Snoek, Alex Mihailidis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation ResearchAustralian Government
KeywordsUsabilityComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)DementiaIndependence (probability theory)Human–computer interactionPopulationArtificial intelligenceMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerations of how to facilitate aging-in-place are becoming increasingly pertinent as caregivers are overwhelmed by an aging population. A primary challenge to independent living is the inability to use products associated with tasks of daily living. As improving the usability of these products for the elderly will extend their independence, this work attempts to automate and expedite the assessment of usability using artificial intelligence. Video analysis is performed to temporally segment video of human-product interaction and automatically identify segments in which the human has difficulty operating the product. The approach is applied to the study of water faucet designs for older adults with dementia. Empirical analysis is performed on videos of dementia patients operating various faucet types, demonstrating the accuracy of the temporal segmentation (88.1%) and the ability to estimate the relative advantage of either design in terms of operational ease.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207