MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225329210 · doi:10.2196/30517

Lifelog Retrieval From Daily Digital Data: Narrative Review

2022· review· en· W4225329210 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundPrograma Operacional Regional do CentroEuropean Commission
KeywordsLifelogComputer scienceWearable computerScopusNarrativeField (mathematics)Narrative reviewInformation retrievalProcess (computing)World Wide WebMultimediaData scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the wide availability and small size of different types of sensors, together with the decrease in pricing, have allowed the acquisition of a substantial amount of data about a person's life in real time. These sensors can be incorporated into personal electronic devices available at a reasonable cost, such as smartphones and small wearable devices. They allow the acquisition of images, audio, location, physical activity, and physiological signals among other data. With these data, usually denoted as lifelog data, we can then analyze and understand personal experiences and behaviors. This process is called lifelogging. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to present a narrative review of the existing literature about lifelogging over the past decade. To achieve this goal, we analyzed lifelogging applications used to retrieve relevant information from daily digital data, some of them with the purpose of monitoring and assisting people with memory issues and others designed for memory augmentation. We aimed for this review to be used by researchers to obtain a broad idea of the type of data used, methodologies, and applications available in this research field. METHODS: We followed a narrative review methodology to conduct a comprehensive search for relevant publications in Google Scholar and Scopus databases using lifelog topic-related keywords. A total of 411 publications were retrieved and screened. Of these 411 publications, 114 (27.7%) publications were fully reviewed. In addition, 30 publications were manually included based on our bibliographical knowledge of this research field. RESULTS: From the 144 reviewed publications, a total of 113 (78.5%) were selected and included in this narrative review based on content analysis. The findings of this narrative review suggest that lifelogs are prone to become powerful tools to retrieve memories or increase knowledge about an individual's experiences or behaviors. Several computational tools are already available for a considerable range of applications. These tools use multimodal data of different natures, with visual lifelogs being one of the most used and rich sources of information. Different approaches and algorithms to process these data are currently in use, as this review will unravel. Moreover, we identified several open questions and possible lines of investigation in lifelogging. CONCLUSIONS: The use of personal lifelogs can be beneficial to improve the quality of our life, as they can serve as tools for memory augmentation or for providing support to people with memory issues. Through the acquisition and analysis of lifelog data, lifelogging systems can create digital memories that can be potentially used as surrogate memory. Through this narrative review, we understand that contextual information can be extracted from lifelogs, which provides an understanding of the daily life of a person based on events, experiences, and behaviors.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.262 · 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