Past, Present, and Future: A Survey of the Evolution of Affective Robotics for Well-Being
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
Recent research in affective robots has recognized their potential in supporting human well-being. Due to rapidly developing affective and artificial intelligence technologies, this field of research has undergone explosive expansion and advancement in recent years. In order to develop a deeper understanding of recent advancements, we present a systematic review of the past 10 years of research in affective robotics for wellbeing. In this review, we identify the domains of well-being that have been studied, the methods used to investigate affective robots for well-being, and how these have evolved over time. We also examine the evolution of the multifaceted research topic from three lenses: technical, design, and ethical. Finally, we discuss future opportunities for research based on the gaps we have identified in our review – proposing pathways to take affective robotics from the past and present to the future. The results of our review are of interest to human-robot interaction and affective computing researchers, as well as clinicians and well-being professionals who may wish to examine and incorporate affective robotics in their practices.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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