MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565679871 · doi:10.5539/ass.v13n1p11

Personal Care Robots for Older Adults: An Overview

2016· article· en· W2565679871 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Mohammad Hadi Hosseini, K M Goher

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotIndependence (probability theory)Variety (cybernetics)Function (biology)PopulationOlder peopleGerontologyComputer scienceBusinessPsychologyMedicineArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades, the usages of robots in variety of industries have been increased. Self-directed robots have appeared in human lives, specifically, in the areas related to the lives of elderly. The population of old people is significantly growing worldwide. Therefore, there the demand for personal care robots is increasing. The aim of this demand is to enhance the opportunity of mobility and promote independence. In the future, robots care will be in very near contact with people lives. But, what caring roles will robots have at home in the future before old persons? It depends not only on the kinds of robots but also those facets of ageing which are discussed in the paper. This article probes the part and function of robots care in the lifecycle of older adults. It contemplates on the advantages and disadvantages of robots application in human life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207