MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384826747 · doi:10.1177/0308518x231172199

Robots and care of the ageing self: An emerging economy of loneliness

2023· article· en· W4384826747 on OpenAlexafffund
Geraldine Pratt, Caleb Johnston, Kelsey Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNewcastle University
KeywordsLonelinessAusterityPopulation ageingGovernment (linguistics)RobotPopulationSocial robotPublic relationsSociologyBusinessNursingPolitical scienceMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyLawMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What happens when caring for the ageing population is so devalued that robots are deployed to care for our elders? We examine the growing employment of companion robots in elder care as one response to a critical labour shortage and loneliness epidemic shared across the Global North. Reflecting on interviews conducted with robot engineers, researchers, NGO care providers and local government, we examine five robots under development or in use in the UK and the USA. We ask if machines providing emotional and social care signal a diminishment of what it means to be human or if robots and automation present a promising solution to our elder care crisis. We do not evaluate the efficacy of robotic technology but identify and question assumptions concerning what it means to be human in modernity and examine companion or social robots at a moment of crisis and the substantive reorganisation of social reproduction wrought by neoliberal austerity. We end by calling for a reimagining of elder care, in which the care of our elders is radically revalued and where robots assist and support workers in their difficult and skilled labour of care.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and SpaceSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207