Caregiver development of activity-supporting services for smart homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults often need some level of assistance in performing daily living activities. Even though these activities are common to the vast majority of individuals (e.g., eating, bathing, dressing), the way they are performed varies across individuals. Supporting older people in performing their everyday activities is a major avenue of research in smart homes. However, because of its early stage, this line of work has paid little attention on customizing assistive computing support with respect to the specific needs of each older adult towards improving its effectiveness and acceptability. We propose a tool-based approach to allowing caregivers to define services in the area of home daily living, leveraging their knowledge and expertise on the older adult they care for. This approach consists of two stages: 1) a wizard allows caregivers to define an assistive service, which supports aspects of a daily activity that are specific to an older adult; 2) the wizard-generated service is uploaded in an existing smart home platform and interpreted by a dedicated component, carrying out the caregiver-defined service. Our approach has been implemented. Our wizard has been successfully used to define existing manually-programmed, activity-supporting services. The resulting services have been deployed and executed by an existing assisted living platform deployed in the home of community-dwelling individuals. They have been shown to be equivalent to their manually-programmed counterparts. We also conducted an ergonomics study involving five occupational therapists, who tested our wizard with clinical vignettes describing fictitious patients. Participants were able to successfully define services while revealing an ease of use of our wizard.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".