Exploratory analysis of real personal emergency response call conversations: considerations for personal emergency response spoken dialogue systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to derive data from real, recorded, personal emergency response call conversations to help improve the artificial intelligence and decision making capability of a spoken dialogue system in a smart personal emergency response system. The main study objectives were to: develop a model of personal emergency response; determine categories for the model's features; identify and calculate measures from call conversations (verbal ability, conversational structure, timing); and examine conversational patterns and relationships between measures and model features applicable for improving the system's ability to automatically identify call model categories and predict a target response. METHODS: This study was exploratory and used mixed methods. Personal emergency response calls were pre-classified according to call model categories identified qualitatively from response call transcripts. The relationships between six verbal ability measures, three conversational structure measures, two timing measures and three independent factors: caller type, risk level, and speaker type, were examined statistically. RESULTS: Emergency medical response services were the preferred response for the majority of medium and high risk calls for both caller types. Older adult callers mainly requested non-emergency medical service responders during medium risk situations. By measuring the number of spoken words-per-minute and turn-length-in-words for the first spoken utterance of a call, older adult and care provider callers could be identified with moderate accuracy. Average call taker response time was calculated using the number-of-speaker-turns and time-in-seconds measures. Care providers and older adults used different conversational strategies when responding to call takers. The words 'ambulance' and 'paramedic' may hold different latent connotations for different callers. CONCLUSIONS: The data derived from the real personal emergency response recordings may help a spoken dialogue system classify incoming calls by caller type with moderate probability shortly after the initial caller utterance. Knowing the caller type, the target response for the call may be predicted with some degree of probability and the output dialogue could be tailored to this caller type. The average call taker response time measured from real calls may be used to limit the conversation length in a spoken dialogue system before defaulting to a live call taker.
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 | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".