MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010959684 · doi:10.1177/2055668319887864

Context awareness architecture for ambient-assisted living applications: Case study of nighttime wandering

2020· article· en· W3010959684 on OpenAlexaff
Hubert Kenfack Ngankam, Hélène Pigot, Dominique Lorrain, Isabelle Viens, Sylvain Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssisted livingContext (archaeology)ArchitectureComputer sciencePsychologyArtGerontologyVisual artsHistoryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This work presents an ambient-assisted living application that encourages seniors during nocturnal wandering episodes to return to bed in calm and comfort reassurance. METHODS: Structuring knowledge by designing a software architecture capable of delivering high-level analysis and processing. A senior's home has been upgraded into a smart home enabling the gathering of habits for two weeks and set up for personalized assistance over four weeks. Home automation devices associated with Actigraph monitors and self-reported sleep were used for more accuracy. RESULTS: The architectural model can be used in ambient-assisted living applications for which data collection is permanent and continuous. Its layered organization facilitates the management of specific and general activities of daily life. The results of the home experience show that the system gave a notification whenever the need arose. On the other hand, it allowed the caregiver to get more information about the lifestyle of the senior. CONCLUSIONS: Future work should focus on providing more services to contextualize assistance. Ontology is used to structure all the ambient knowledge of the smart home. We also plan to do more home experiments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies EngineeringSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207