The robot Tangy facilitating Trivia games: A team-based user-study with long-term care residents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robot facilitated cognitive interventions for older adults have mainly focused on one-on-one interactions or with groups of people each individually playing. In this paper, we present the design of the socially assistive robot, Tangy, for autonomously facilitating the team-based cognitively stimulating activity of Trivia with older adults which encourages users to interact with each other. A pilot study at a local long-term care facility with older adult residents demonstrated that Tangy could successfully facilitate Trivia games. In general, the participants were engaged in the activity, complied with the robot's requests, and had positive attitudes towards Tangy during the games. The Trivia game scenario also promoted cooperation and interactions between teammates. Furthermore, we compared the results in this study with the results of our previous study on the individually played game of Bingo. The comparison results showed that participants complied with the robot and were engaged during both activities, however, the team-based Trivia had higher levels of engagement and player interaction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it