Parent and Educator Concerns on the Pedagogical Use of AI-Equipped Social Robots
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
Social robots equipped with conversational artificial intelligence are becoming increasingly common in educational settings. However, the long-term consequences of such uses remain relatively unknown due to their novelty. To ensure children's safe use of social robots, and proper adoption of the technology, it is crucial to scrutinize potential concerns regarding their usage. This exploration will provide insights to inform the design and development of this technology. Thus, this study investigated parents' and educators' perceptions of social robot use by children in the home and school settings. Our main objectives are to; 1) explore whether the types and/or levels of concern are tied to the role that individuals take (i.e., parents vs. educators); 2) explore if the levels of concern vary based on the gender and age of the potential child user; and 3) compile a catalogue of parents' and educators' concerns, both from the literature and those that are overlooked, surrounding children's use of SRs for learning. To address those inquiries, a cross-national online survey study was conducted with parents and educator participants (N = 396). Overall, participants indicated high levels of concern but recognized the potential in responsibly applying such technology for educational purposes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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