Investigating Older Adults' Use of a Socially Assistive Robot via Time Series Clustering and User Profiling: Descriptive Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aging population and the shortage of geriatric care workers are major global concerns. Socially assistive robots (SARs) have the potential to address these issues, but developing SARs for various types of users is still in its infancy. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the characteristics and use patterns of SARs. METHODS: This study analyzed log data from 64 older adults who used a SAR called Hyodol for 60 days to understand use patterns and their relationship with user characteristics. Data on user interactions, robot-assisted content use, demographics, physical and mental health, and lifestyle were collected. Time series clustering was used to group users based on use patterns, followed by profiling analysis to relate these patterns to user characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 4 time series clusters were created based on use patterns: helpers, friends, short-term users, and long-term users. Time series and profiling analyses revealed distinct patterns for each group. We found that older adults use SARs differently based on factors beyond demographics and health. This study demonstrates a data-driven approach to understanding user needs, and the findings can help tailor SAR interventions for specific user groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends our understanding of the factors associated with the long-term use of SARs for geriatric care and makes methodological contributions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".