Preserving the self with artificial intelligence using VIPCare—a virtual interaction program for dementia caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Assistive technology is increasingly used to support the physical needs of differently abled persons but has yet to make inroads on support for cognitive or psychological issues. This gap is an opportunity to address another-the lack of contribution from theoretical social science that can provide insights into problems that cannot be seen. Using Affect Control Theory (ACT), the current project seeks to close that gap with an artificially intelligent application to improve interaction and affect for people with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). Using sociological theory, it models interactions with persons with ADRD based on self-sentiments, rather than cognitive memory, and informs a cellphone-based assistive tool called VIPCare for supporting caregivers. Methods: Staff focus groups and interviews with family members of persons with ADRD in a long-term residential care facility collected residents' daily needs and personal histories. Using ACT's evaluation, potency, and activity dimensions, researchers used these data to formulate a self-sentiment profile for each resident and programmed that profile into the VIPCare application. VIPCare used that profile to simulate affectively intelligent social interactions with each unique resident that reduce deflection from established sentiments and, thus, negative emotions. Results: We report on the data collection to design the application, develop self-sentiment profiles for the resident, and generate assistive technology that applies a sociological theory of affect to real world management of interaction, emotion, and mental health. Discussion: By reducing trial and error in learning to engage people with dementia, this tool has potential to smooth interaction and improve wellbeing for a population vulnerable to distress.
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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".