Consumers’ Ethical Perceptions of Autonomous Service Robots in Hotels
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
This study empirically and comprehensively explores consumers’ ethical perceptions of autonomous service robots (ASRs) in hotels. Under the triangulation approach, this study has identified eight themes of consumer perceived ethical issues (privacy, security, safety, transparency, fairness, socialization, autonomy, and responsibility). Each theme can be explained from two dimensions: ethical issues arise during the interaction (i.e., ubiquitous surveillance, excessive data, unidentified risks, service disclosure, inaccessibility, dehumanization, selection of services, and service recovery), and ethical issues can be raised by the characteristics of ASRs (i.e., privacy infringement, malicious use, malfunctions, untrustworthiness, biased features, job replacement, inflexibility, and self-identified solutions). This study is the first to propose ethical issues of ASRs from two dimensions with different intelligence levels, and to highlight ethical issues during hotel service interactions. The findings contribute to ethics studies of service robots from consumers’ perspectives and offer managerial insights to reduce ethical concerns and enhance ASRs usage in hotels.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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