Smart Home, The Next Generation: Closing the Gap between Users and Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we discuss the gap that exists between the caregivers of older adults attempting to age-in-place and sophisticated ”smart-home ” systems that can sense the environment and provide assistance when needed. We argue that smart-home systems need to be customizable by end-users, and we present a general-purpose model for cognitive assistive technology that can be adapted to suit many different tasks, users and environments. Al-though we can provide mechanisms for engineers and designers to build and adapt smart-home systems based on this general-purpose model, these mechanisms are not easily understood by or sufficiently user-friendly for actual end users such as older adults and their care-givers. Our goal is therefore to study how to bridge the gap between the end-users and this technology. In this paper, we discuss our work on this problem from both sides: developing technology that is customizable and general-purpose, and studying user’s abilities and needs when it comes to building smart-home systems to help with activities of daily living. We show how a large gap still exists, and propose ideas for how to bridge the gap.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".