MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W36013382 · doi:10.3390/life12081203

A decision-theoretic approach to task assistance for persons with dementia

2005· article· en· W36013382 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Boger, Pascal Poupart, Jesse Hoey, Craig Boutilier, Geoff Fernie, Alex Mihailidis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processDementiaTask (project management)PersonalizationComputer scienceIndependence (probability theory)Markov decision processProcess (computing)CognitionMarkov processArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionCognitive psychologyRisk analysis (engineering)Machine learningPsychologyDiseaseMarkov modelMarkov chainMedicineEngineeringNeuroscienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive assistive technologies that aid people with dementia (such as Alzheimer’s disease) hold the promise to provide such people with an increased level of independence. However, to realize this promise, such systems must account for the specific needs and preferences of individuals. We argue that this form of customization requires a sequential, decision-theoretic model of interaction. We describe both fully and partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP) models of a handwashing task, and show that, despite the potential computational complexity, these can be effectively solved and produce policies that are evaluated as useful by professional caregivers. 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations160
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207