MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186089682 · doi:10.1145/3469595.3469603

VUI Influencers: How the Media Portrays Voice User Interfaces for Older Adults

2021· article· en· W3186089682 on OpenAlexaff
Jaisie Sin, Cosmin Munteanu, Numrita Ramanand, Yi Rong Tan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociotechnical systemInfluencer marketingUsabilityThematic analysisFocus (optics)Computer scienceSocial mediaMultimediaWorld Wide WebSociologyHuman–computer interactionKnowledge managementQualitative researchBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voice User Interfaces (VUIs) such as smart speakers hold promise for older adults (OAs) in terms of usability and convenience. However, their adoption and the extent of their benefits to OAs may be influenced by mass media, as this is a primary source of technology education for OAs. Thus, we aim to obtain a better understanding of how VUIs’ value and utility for OAs are portrayed in the media. We conducted a systematic review and thematic analysis of articles published in ten popular digital news outlets that focus on VUIs and older adults. The analysis reveals several design and engineering factors that are portrayed in media as being relevant or encouraging to older adults’ adoption of VUIs. Given the media's influence of the consumer adoption of new technologies, this analysis brings to light several sociotechnical aspects that are dominant threads within the media discourse related to VUIs. Through this, we suggest areas of focus for the research and design of VUIs that account for these influencing factors.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207