Health Applications of Gerontechnology, Privacy, and Surveillance: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this era of technological advances designed to assist older adults to age in place and monitor health challenges, the emphasis has been on the surveillance of older adults for their safety and the peace of mind of caregivers. This article focuses on two emerging gerontechnologies: wearables and smart home or ambient assistive living (AAL) devices. In order to explore the intersections of the ageing enterprise and surveillance capitalism, this scoping review addresses the following questions: (1) what are the existing technologies; (2) what are the privacy concerns raised by participants, researchers, and caregivers due to intended and unintended uses of these technologies? Specifically, this article synthesizes twenty relevant sources concerning the surveillance potentials of these gerontechnologies and the privacy implications for adults aged sixty-five and over. While these technologies may offer older adults greater autonomy/safety and caregivers peace of mind, their surveillance and privacy infringement potentials cannot be overlooked or cast as a trade-off. Amidst the automation of the care, collection, combination, and commodification of various forms of personal, health, and wellness metadata, the right to privacy, dignity, and ageing in place must remain central to the adoption and use of these technologies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it