Exploring participatory design methods for seniors with memory loss through the co- \ndesign of tangible communication tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the number of seniors with memory loss continues to rise, the importance of designing tools that facilitate connection with loved ones to reduce feelings of isolation is becoming increasingly apparent. Feelings of isolation have been linked to poor health outcomes and consequently place larger demands on health care systems, health care professionals, family members, and friends. Seniors with memory loss (SWML) have a higher risk of becoming social isolated, and isolation can accelerate the rate of memory loss. This research addresses social isolation among this population by exploring ways to engage them in co-designing solutions. Traditional research methods and communication technologies may not be appropriate or may need to be modified in order to engage SWML. Through a combination of participatory design, co-design, and generative tools, this research explored: (1) current research methods and techniques used to engage SWML in the design process, (2) the evaluation of existing and new design techniques through the facilitation of three pilot studies, (3) and insights and recommendations to engage this population in future work.
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 | 0.080 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".