Ethical Considerations of Social Robots for Supporting Mental Health and Wellbeing in Older Adults in Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social robots are increasingly becoming utilized to address mental health challenges in older adults, such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness. However, ethical concerns surrounding their use are insufficiently explored in empirical research. This paper examines the ethical challenges and mitigation strategies for implementing social robots in long-term care settings. Drawing from insights gained over research across two Canadian studies involving Paro and Lovot, we highlight the critical role of an equity-focused approach to ensure the ethical use of social robots. We advocate for the respectful inclusion of the voices and desires of marginalized groups, such as older adults with dementia. Key ethical issues discussed include inequitable access, consent, substitution of human care, and concerns about infantilization. Our empirical work offers practical strategies to navigate these challenges, aiming to ensure that social robots promote mental health and well-being in an ethically responsible manner for older adults living in long-term care.
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 | 0.058 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".