MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visualizing Effects of COVID-19 Social Isolation with Residential Activity Big Data Sensor Data

2020· article· en· W3136278039 on OpenAlexafffund
Anuradha Rajkumar, Bruce Wallace, Laura Ault, Julien Larivière-Chartier, Frank Knoefel, Rafik Goubran, Jeffrey Kaye, Neil Thomas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaBruyèreCarleton University
FundersNational Institute on AgingAGE-WELL
KeywordsDyadCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)VisualizationComputer scienceBig dataIsolation (microbiology)Social isolationData visualizationDementia2019-20 coronavirus outbreakData scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychologyData miningMedicineDiseaseDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to understand and visualize big data sets is of increasing interest to caregivers and clinicians as ambient home sensing can provide massive amounts of data related to the activities of residents. However, this data is only useful if it can be effectively and simply visualized for review and analysis. This paper presents the visualization of longitudinal data sets from ambient well-being sensors deployed in 3 residences that have a spousal pair dyad where 1 resident has been diagnosed with Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia and the spousal partner is acting as a caregiver. The paper presents the differences in activity and behaviour that can be observed in the 3 residences by comparing two 30-day periods prior to and one 30-day period during COVID-19 social isolation precautions. The work shows the potential for this circle plot based visualization technique to summarize resident activity and also to convey external factors such as the variation in solar day that can itself influence behaviour.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207