MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2969907558 · doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1244-6

The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review

2019· review· en· W2969907558 on OpenAlexafffund
Lillian Hung, Cindy H. Liu, Evan Woldum, Andy Au-Yeung, Annette Berndt, Christine Wallsworth, Neil Horne, Mario Gregorio, Jim Mann, Habib Chaudhury

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityMr. and Mrs. P.A. Woodward's Foundation
KeywordsMedicineDementiaUsabilityWorkloadMoodPsychological interventionNursingPopulationStigma (botany)PsychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations356
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Geriatrics→Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI→French-language works237,207→