MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002514201 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnz190

Towards Responsible Implementation of Monitoring Technologies in Institutional Care

2019· article· en· W3002514201 on OpenAlexafffund
Alisa Grigorovich, Pia Kontos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsScholarshipEngineering ethicsReflection (computer programming)Key (lock)Political scienceKnowledge managementBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing awareness of errors and harms in institutional care settings, combined with rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, have resulted in a widespread push for implementing monitoring technologies in institutional settings. There has been limited critical reflection in gerontology regarding the ethical, social, and policy implications of using these technologies. We critically review current scholarship regarding use of monitoring technology in institutional care, and identify key gaps in knowledge and important avenues for future research and development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207