MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901479818

E-Amigo: Assistant for the Intellectually Disabled

2007· article· en· W2901479818 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Dai, Siva Venkat, Shruthi Raman, Sameer Rehman, Shajee Kathrirgamanathan, Mayunthan Nithiyanantham, Hao Xin, John Zelek

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)PsychologyComputer scienceMultimedia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intellectual disabled are particularly im- pacted in the area of daily living skills. They often have trouble remembering routine tasks such as making dinner or taking a bath, or infrequent events such as doctor’s appointments or sporting events. The e-Amigo seeks to alleviate this prob- lem by providing event notifications through the use of a portable digital aid. Designed to accom- modate the unique needs of an intellectually dis- abled individual, the e-Amigo incorporates a du- rable, elegant, and inconspicuous form with an easy viewing display screen. The screen displays event reminders at preset times to alert the patient of an event, accompanied by the voice of a care- giver. The portable device synchronizes with cus- tomized calendar software on the caregiver’s computer, providing the caregiver full control over his or her patient’s schedules. The initial pro- totype of the e-Amigo was implemented using a PDA and tested with professional caregivers. Fi- nally, client evaluation of the e-Amigo prototype confirmed that the device has met its initial goals of aiding intellectually disabled people in con- ducting daily living tasks. Key recommendations for future improvements are button functionality for the PDA and scheduling application for the caregivers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207