User perspectives on emotionally aligned social robots for older adults and persons living with dementia
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
Introduction: Socially assistive robots are devices designed to aid users through social interaction and companionship. Social robotics promise to support cognitive health and aging in place for older adults with and without dementia, as well as their care partners. However, while new and more advanced social robots are entering the commercial market, there are still major barriers to their adoption, including a lack of emotional alignment between users and their robots. Affect Control Theory (ACT) is a framework that allows for the computational modeling of emotional alignment between two partners. Methods: = 7). Results: We demonstrate the potential of ACT to model the emotional relationship between older adult users and three exemplar robots. We also capture a rich description of participants' robot attitudes through the lens of the Technology Acceptance Model, as well as the most important ethical concerns around social robot use. Conclusions: Findings from this work will support the development of emotionally aligned, user-centered robots for older adults, care partners, and people living with dementia.
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 | 0.000 | 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