MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035793627 · doi:10.3233/jad-200154

Addressing the Ethics of Telepresence Applications Through End-User Engagement

2020· letter· en· W3035793627 on OpenAlexaff
Julie M. Robillard, Ian P. Goldman, Tony J. Prescott, François Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeCommunity Based Research CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModalitiesContext (archaeology)Human–computer interactionComputer sciencePsychologyEngineering ethicsEngineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Portacolone et al.'s Ethics Review highlights the ethical challenges associated with the implementation of telepresence devices and applications in the context of aging and dementia. In this response, we review ethical considerations as they relate to specific modalities of telepresence, with an emphasis on the continuum of potential interaction agents, from known individuals to fully automated and intelligent interlocutors. We further discuss areas in need of empirical evidence to inform regulatory efforts in telepresence. We close with a call for meaningful end-user engagement at all stages of technology 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 categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.114 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207