Understanding Family Needs: Informing Social Robot Design to Support Children with Disabilities to Engage in Play
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
While children with disabilities often face barriers to play including reduced time, exclusion, and ill-suited toys, impacting their development, social robots provide the potential to help: they can motivate children, increase task engagement, and facilitate social interactions. However, social robots (and technological interventions in general) struggle to be adopted into regular use within homes by families, commonly being abandoned after a short time. Rather than focusing on the utility of these interventions, we instead look how they integrate into family needs and lifestyles. We designed and conducted a study where we engaged children living with disabilities and their families, using interactions with real robots and exploratory exercises, to learn about their perspectives, needs, and concerns regarding adopting a social companion robot in their home. We analyzed participant task engagement and feedback from the perspective of supporting play for children with disabilities and presented resulting design recommendations for addressing primary concerns and matching key expectations, and to support adoption pathways to improve the chances of success.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it