Lifelog Retrieval From Daily Digital Data: Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".