Understanding Smart Home Sensor Data for Ageing in Place Through Everyday Household Routines: A Mixed Method Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An ongoing challenge for smart homes research for aging-in-place is how to make sense of the large amounts of data from in-home sensors to facilitate real-time monitoring and develop reliable alerts. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to explore the usefulness of a routine-based approach for making sense of smart home data for the elderly. METHODS: Maximum variation sampling was used to select three cases for an in-depth mixed methods exploration of the daily routines of three elderly participants in a smart home trial using 180 days of power use and motion sensor data and longitudinal interview data. RESULTS: Sensor data accurately matched self-reported routines. By comparing daily movement data with personal routines, it was possible to identify changes in routine that signaled illness, recovery from bereavement, and gradual deterioration of sleep quality and daily movement. Interview and sensor data also identified changes in routine with variations in temperature and daylight hours. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrated that a routine-based approach makes interpreting sensor data easy, intuitive, and transparent. They highlighted the importance of understanding and accounting for individual differences in preferences for routinization and the influence of the cyclical nature of daily routines, social or cultural rhythms, and seasonal changes in temperature and daylight hours when interpreting information based on sensor data. This research has demonstrated the usefulness of a routine-based approach for making sense of smart home data, which has furthered the understanding of the challenges that need to be addressed in order to make real-time monitoring and effective alerts a reality.
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 | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".