Ethical challenges related to assistive product access for older adults and adults living with a disability: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the surge of research and development in assistive products for older adults and/or people living with disabilities, policies on access and procurement have lagged in responding to the growing demand from users. Developing policies to address these concerns require an understanding of the ethical challenges underlying approaches for providing assistive products. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and map the literature pertaining to ethical challenges related to assistive product access and procurement to inform policy development. METHODS/DESIGN: We will use established approaches to conducting scoping reviews which include five stages: (1) conducting broad searches to identify potentially relevant literature, (2) refining selection criteria, (3) reviewing search results, (4) mapping literature according to conceptual areas of interest, and (5) summarizing results. We will analyze data by thematically grouping the descriptions of assistive products identified in the included articles and conducting a content analysis to iteratively develop a targeted synthesis of literature focused on ethical challenges in relation to assistive product access and procurement by older adults and/or adults living with disabilities. DISCUSSION: Our scoping review findings will focus on and provide insight about the models, frameworks, and principles that have been used to understand ethical challenges related to technology access and procurement. We will use the findings to help inform a series of citizen panels in Canada to identify Canadians' values and preferences for enhancing equitable access to assistive products.
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 | 0.163 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.009 |
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".