MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2832183395 · doi:10.2196/10451

Evaluating the Use of Smart Home Technology by People With Brain Impairment: Protocol for a Single-Case Experimental Design

2018· article· en· W2832183395 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebecca Jamwal, Libby Callaway, Di Winkler, Louise Farnworth, Robyn Tate

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery ResearchWorkSafe VictoriaMonash UniversityTransport Accident CommissionAustralian Government
KeywordsProtocol (science)Home automationIntervention (counseling)Baseline (sea)Computer scienceApplied psychologyMedicinePsychologyNursingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Smart home technologies are emerging as a useful component of support delivery for people with brain impairment. To promote their successful uptake and sustained use, focus on technology support services, including training, is required. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to present a systematic smart home technology training approach for people with brain impairment. In addition, the paper outlines a multiple-baseline, single-case experimental design methodology to evaluate training effectiveness. METHODS: Adult participants experiencing acquired brain impairment who can provide consent to participate and who live in housing where smart home technology is available will be recruited. Target behaviors will be identified in consultation with each participant based on his or her personal goals for technology use. Target behaviors may include participant knowledge of the number and type of technology functions available, frequency of smart home technology use, and number of function types used. Usage data will be gathered via log-on smart home technology servers. A smart technology digital training package will also be developed and left on a nominated device (smartphone, tablet) with each participant to use during the trial and posttrial, as desired. Measures of the target behavior will be taken throughout the baseline, intervention, and postintervention phases to provide the evidence of impact of the training on the target behaviors and ascertain whether utilization rates are sustained over time. In addition, trial results will be analyzed using structured visual analysis, supplemented with statistical analysis appropriate to single-case methodology. RESULTS: While ascertaining the effectiveness of this training protocol, study results will offer new insights into technology-related training approaches for people with brain impairment. Preliminary data collection has been commenced at one supported housing site, with further scoping work continuing to recruit participants from additional sites. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation evidence will assist in planning for the smart technology set-up as well as training and support services necessary to accompany the provision of new devices and systems. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/10451.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.008

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 head0.769
GPT teacher head0.683
Teacher spread0.086 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207