The adoption of socially assistive robots for long-term care: During COVID-19 and in a post-pandemic society
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid spread of COVID-19 has prompted a surge in the adoption of technology, highlighting a number of potential applications for Socially Assistive Robots (SARs). Our entire healthcare system has been under unprecedented strain, and going forward, we must consider how robotic technology could help improve the quality of care and day-to-day functionality of our care facilities. Herein, we present our human-robot interaction study in a local long-term care centre during the pandemic and the lessons learned from deploying a SAR to screen staff members. We investigate staff acceptance and the influence of demographics on perceptions of the SAR. Results show that overall, staff were positive about the screening robot, and that autonomous screening with a social robot is a potential application in long-term care homes. We further detail the challenges and future opportunities to develop SARs, including recommendations to successfully implement and adopt these robots in a post-pandemic society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it