Cocreating a Harmonized Living Lab for Big Data–Driven Hybrid Persona Development: Protocol for Cocreating, Testing, and Seeking Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Living Labs are user-centered, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user cocreation approach, which integrates research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings. The Horizon 2020 Project VITALISE (Virtual Health and Wellbeing Living Lab Infrastructure) unites 19 partners across 11 countries. The project aims to harmonize Living Lab procedures and enable effective and convenient transnational and virtual access to key European health and well-being research infrastructures, which are governed by Living Labs. The VITALISE consortium will conduct joint research activities in the fields included in the care pathway of patients: rehabilitation, transitional care, and everyday living environments for older adults. This protocol focuses on health and well-being research in everyday living environments. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study is to cocreate and test a harmonized research protocol for developing big data-driven hybrid persona, which are hypothetical user archetypes created to represent a user community. In addition, the use and applicability of innovative technologies will be investigated in the context of various everyday living and Living Lab environments. METHODS: In phase 1, surveys and structured interviews will be used to identify the most suitable Living Lab methods, tools, and instruments for health-related research among VITALISE project Living Labs (N=10). A series of web-based cocreation workshops and iterative cowriting processes will be applied to define the initial protocols. In phase 2, five small-scale case studies will be conducted to test the cocreated research protocols in various real-life everyday living settings and Living Lab infrastructures. In phase 3, a cross-case analysis grounded on semistructured interviews will be conducted to identify the challenges and benefits of using the proposed research protocols. Furthermore, a series of cocreation workshops and the consensus seeking Delphi study process will be conducted in parallel to cocreate and validate the acceptance of the defined harmonized research protocols among wider Living Lab communities. RESULTS: As of September 30, 2021, project deliverables Ethics and safety manual and Living lab standard version 1 have been submitted to the European Commission review process. The study will be finished by March 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of this research will lead to harmonized procedures and protocols in the context of big data-driven hybrid persona development among health and well-being Living Labs in Europe and beyond. Harmonized protocols enable Living Labs to exploit similar research protocols, devices, hardware, and software for interventions and complex data collection purposes. Economies of scale and improved use of resources will speed up and improve research quality and offer novel possibilities for open data sharing, multidisciplinary research, and comparative studies beyond current practices. Case studies will also provide novel insights for implementing innovative technologies in the context of everyday Living Lab research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34567.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.195 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.023 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".