MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7063746157

Aging in place with Google and Amazon Smart Speakers: Privacy and Surveillance Implications for Older Adults

2023· dissertation· en· W7063746157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityThematic analysisLegislationAging in placeConsumer privacyPopulationPopulation ageingAudit
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercial-grade smart home technologies (SHTs) such as Google and Amazon smart speakers are rising in popularity among older adults. Marketing materials claim that smart speakers can support older adults aging in place through emergency contact features, medication reminders, and digital companionship with voice assistants. As our aging population challenges strained health and senior care systems in Canada, SHTs are positioned to alleviate some of the pressure. At the same time, under surveillance capitalism, big tech companies and marketers stand to profit from collecting massive amounts of user data in attempts to predict, modify, and control behaviour through targeted advertisements. While Canadian private sector privacy legislation hinges on meaningful user consent for data collection, obtaining such consent can prove difficult for smart speaker users in general, especially for older adults with limited technological experience. Further, little is known about the types of ads that follow older adults around the web through programmatic advertising. To better understand the dynamics between Google, Amazon, and older adult smart speaker users, this dissertation asks the following: How are smart speakers marketed to older adults and care partners, how are they used, and what are the implications for privacy, surveillance, and aging in place in Canada? A multi-methods approach is used to answer this question by including the voices of older adult smart speaker users alongside interviews with relevant experts in technology, privacy, and aging. This study also relies on a qualitative thematic analysis of marketing materials, documentary analyses of privacy policies and relevant legislation, and an algorithmic audit to further explore the relationship between older adults’ privacy, autonomy, and targeted advertising. Alongside user education programs, it concludes with suggestions for user-centric design and data justice as a regulatory approach that supports user privacy and autonomy while challenging the potential for bias.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207