Say what you want, I’m not listening!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a conversational social robot behaviour design that draws from psychotherapy research to support individual self-reflection and wellbeing, without requiring the robot to parse or otherwise understand what the user is saying. This simplicity focused approached enabled us to intersect the well-being aims with privacy and simplicity, while achieving high robustness. We implemented a fully autonomous and standalone (not network enabled) prototype and conducted a proof-of-concept study as an initial step to test the feasibility of our behaviour design: whether people would successfully engage with our simple behaviour and could interact meaningfully with it. We deployed our robot unsupervised for 48 h into the homes of 14 participants. All participants engaged with self-reflection with the robot without reporting any interaction challenges or technical issues. This supports the feasibility of our specific behaviour design, as well as the general viability of our non-parsing simplicity approach to conversation, which we believe to be an exciting avenue for further exploration. Our results thus pave the way for further exploring how conversational behaviour designs like ours may support people living with loneliness.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.007 | 0.025 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".