MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315629300 · doi:10.3233/faia220610

The Significance of the Sense of Touch for the Use of Social Robots in Care Settings

2023· book-chapter· en· W4315629300 on OpenAlexaff
Iva Apostolova

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsDominican University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)RobotSocial carePsychologySocial robotHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two main goals I set out to achieve here. On the one hand, I intend to delve deeper into the exploration of the sense of touch, which has been largely ignored by philosophers, including empirically minded ones. And on the other hand, albeit not decisively conclusive, my claim is that there are important boundaries of the implementation of social robots in a care setting such as long-term care facilities based on interactive limitations. The limitations in the interactions between human subjects (both care recipients and care givers) and social robots are most visible where touch is involved, hence my preoccupation with it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207