Co-creating Humanistic AI AgeTech to Support Dynamic Care Ecosystems: A Preliminary Guiding Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As society rapidly digitizes, successful aging necessitates using technology for health and social care and social engagement. Technologies aimed to support older adults (e.g., smart homes, assistive robots, wheelchairs) are increasingly applying artificial intelligence (AI), and thereby creating ethical challenges to technology development and use. The international debate on AI ethics focuses on implications to society (e.g., bias, equity) and to individuals (e.g., privacy, consent). The relational nature of care, however, warrants a humanistic lens to examine how "AI AgeTech" will shape, and be shaped by, social networks or care ecosystems in terms of their care actors (i.e., older adults, care partners, service providers); inter-actor relations (e.g., care decision making) and relationships (e.g., social, professional); and evolving care arrangements. For instance, if an older adult's reduced functioning leads actors to renegotiate their risk tolerances and care routines, smart homes or robots become more than tools that actors configure; they become semiautonomous actors, in themselves, with the potential to influence functioning and interpersonal relationships. As an experientially diverse, transdisciplinary working group of older adults, care partners, researchers, clinicians, and entrepreneurs, we co-constructed intersectional care experiences, to guide technology research, development, and use. Our synthesis contributes a preliminary guiding model for AI AgeTech innovation that delineates humanistic attributes, values, and design orientations, and captures the ethical, sociological, and technological nuances of dynamic care ecosystems. Our visual probes and recommended tools and techniques offer researchers, developers/innovators, and care actors concrete ways of using this model to promote successful aging in AI-enabled futures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".