MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581788138 · doi:10.1177/2055668316685038

Qualitative study of affective identities in dementia patients for the design of cognitive assistive technologies

2017· article· en· W2581788138 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra König, Linda E. Francis, Jyoti Joshi, Julie M. Robillard, Jesse Hoey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsNeuroDevNetUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAGE-WELLU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)FeelingContext (archaeology)PsychologySituational ethicsIdentity (music)CognitionAffect (linguistics)Grounded theoryDementiaQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyMedicineDiseaseComputer scienceCommunicationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our overall aim is to develop an emotionally intelligent cognitive assistant (ICA) to help older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) to complete activities of daily living more independently. For improved adoption, such a system should take into account how individuals feel about who they are. This paper investigates different affective identities found in older care home residents with AD, leading to a computational characterization of these aspects and, thus, tailored prompts to each specific individual's identity in a way that potentially ensures smoother and more effective uptake and response. We report on a set of qualitative interviews with 12 older adult care home residents and caregivers. The interview covered life domains (family, origin, occupation, etc.), and feelings related to the ICA. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed to extract a set of affective identities, coded according to the social-psychological principles of affect control theory (ACT). Preliminary results show that a set of identities can be extracted for each participant (e.g. father, husband). Furthermore, our results provide support for the proposition that, while identities grounded in memories fade as a person loses their memory, habitual aspects of identity that reflect the overall "persona" may persist longer, even without situational context.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies EngineeringSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207