Conducting agetech research with marginalized and underserved communities: Challenging assumptions
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
Technology is a tool that can bring benefits, but may increase disparities between people due to limited accessibility or relevance.Health innovations should be more accessible for marginalized and underserved communities, including people with limited digital literacy.Co-creation is a strategy to reduce inequities by involving end users, such as patients, clients, residents, professionals, in the health innovation development and implementation.CONTENT This symposium focuses on technology acceptance, usability, and adoption in marginalized groups and underserved communities.We use the GATE's 5P framework (WHO, 2022) to describe aspects of innovative technologies: people, policy, products, provision and personnel.First, Van Waterschoot and Gramberg will talk about innovative technologies to support professionals in the communication with older adults living independently at home.A virtual assistant has been developed to increase the awareness of seniors regarding their living conditions at home.Bults, Zuidhof, van den Berg, Liu, and den Ouden will discuss barriers and opportunities for wide-scale implementation of innovative technology in healthcare.Morita, Istrate, Zalc, Rumeau, Vigouroux, and Campo will focus on sustainable AAL technology for supporting seniors in independent living shared homes.Finally, Ros Rincn, Miguel Cruz, Daum, and Liu will challenge assumptions about digital technology acceptance among older adults.STRUCTURE Presenters from the Netherlands, Canada, and France will give a brief presentation summarizing their papers.This will be followed by round table discussions based on the GATE's 5P Framework.CONCLUSION The symposium will provide participants with an opportunity to apply the GATE's 5P framework to their work, and exchange international perspectives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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