MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285618649 · doi:10.2196/preprints.25116

Developing a Smart Home Technology Innovation for People With Physical and Mental Health Problems: Considerations and Recommendations (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4285618649 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Forchuk, Jonathan Serrato, Daniel J. Lizotte, Rupinder Mann, Gavin Taylor, Sara Husni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsParkwood InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMental healthPsychological interventionHome automationIntervention (counseling)Health careBusinessInternet privacyKnowledge managementNursingMedicineComputer scienceTelecommunicationsWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNSTRUCTURED Smart home technologies present an unprecedented opportunity to improve health and health care by providing greater communication and connectivity with services and care providers and by supporting the daily activities of people managing both mental and physical health problems. Based on our experience from conducting smart technology health studies, including a smart home intervention, we provide guidance on developing and implementing such interventions. First, we describe the need for an overarching principle of security and privacy that must be attended to in all aspects of such a project. We then describe 4 key steps in developing a successful smart home innovation for people with mental and physical health conditions. These include (1) setting up the digital infrastructure, (2) ensuring the components of the system communicate, (3) ensuring that the system is designed for the intended population, and (4) engaging stakeholders. Recommendations on how to approach each of these steps are provided along with suggested literature that addresses additional considerations, guidelines, and equipment selection in more depth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→