Focus Group Findings to Support the Preliminary Development of the Augmented Reality Education Experience (AREduX)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is considered a global health priority with projections of the disease set to increase dramatically across the world. Current support for persons living with dementia (PLWD) relies on long-term care and local service centers to provide education and support. Augmented reality-based programs continue to gain momentum across health sectors, becoming an innovative approach that provides an opportunity to have a visceral experience, which can deepen understanding and provide an embodied perspective of other groups within a relatively short time frame. There is increasing interest in developing approaches to aid patient care outcomes for PLWD and their caregivers. Hence, healthcare providers (HCPs) who are appropriately trained and equipped to provide quality care to PLWD are essential and of international concern. The purpose of this research program is to develop an augmented reality (AR) education experience (AREduX), a proof of concept prototype in the form of a digital resource that uses AR to simulate the physical and cognitive symptoms that PLWD experience. The findings from a stakeholder focus group will allow for the preliminary development of the AREduX.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".