Part 2: Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AgingBackground: Health and social care are facing unprecedented challenges due to the changing patterns of disease, the demanding expectations of service users, financial restrictions and an ever increasing ageing population.The effect of these challenges are observed in the increases in demand for, and use of, health and social care, the cost of caring and the need for more qualified carers.Assistive technologies, in particular digital technologies, are being heralded as part of the solution to provide sustainable social care services.Human relationships are paramount in social care across the life course and are important for the care workforce as giving care often has value for the care giver.Protecting autonomy and upholding the right to human relationships is integral to treating older social care users with dignity.If assistive technologies are to be of benefit to future generations of people in need of assistance we posit that a broader community discussion about the value, worth and place of assistive technologies in social care is required to help inform and to realize policy ambitions and to meet the social care needs of older adults.The aim of this research was therefore to identify key questions for future dialogue.Method: A systematic literature search with a narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify potential research questions for debate.Using free text terms, synonyms and subject headings relating to assistive technology and social care, a systematic search of articles published in English between January 2000 and December 2018 were sourced from Medline (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsychINFO (ProQuest), Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest), British Library Social Welfare Portal and the EThOS databases.Policy documents and discussion pieces on digital technology use in social care were also reviewed as they demonstrate emergent thinking around societal, ethical and moral issues.Record titles and abstracts were assessed by research team members.After removing duplicates, 2473 records were identified for review.Sixty-seven full-text copies of items thought to meet the review inclusion criteria were obtained and assessed against these criteria.Forty-two items fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Eligibility criteria were: items had to be written in English and had to describe and/or report on the use of assistive technology in a social care setting for older people.Disagreements were resolved by consensus within the research team.Key results: Three distinct questions emerged from the data for broader discussion: (1) What are the implications of placing elders in a position where they are 'cared for' by technology devices?(2) If assistive care technologies fail to provide assistance as good as people, is it right that limited resources are invested in devices instead of the social care workforce?(3) Whose interests are being serviced: the people who are caring, the people who are being cared for or the market?Conclusion: To ensure that the promises and benefits of assistive technologies in social care are realized a clearer understanding of the importance of relational care and people's interdependence is required by engaging a wider audience in the discussion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.146 | 0.044 |
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".