The perceptions of university students on technological and ethical risks of using robots in long-term care homes
Assessment outcome
total 2/4 (actionability 0 + authority 2); currency unscored, so pro-rated to 3.0/6
Authorship & scope
Named authors and institutions are clearly provided.
Anchor 2: Explicitly documents peer-review editorial handling with named editors and peer reviewers in Frontiers in Robotics and AI.
Issuers, who it governs, legal force and content are on the full record.
Eligibility gates
HTTP 200, 8926 words of full text extracted
The primary subject is the use of robots and technology in long-term care.
Addresses risk, privacy, and safety considerations regarding robots in care homes.
Named authors and institutions are clearly provided.
No notice of supersession or repeal is present on the page.
Scored criteria
Actionability
0/2Score 0: Description and analysis only, discussing qualitative study findings without setting binding steps or specific rules.
Participants shared the importance of the voice of the resident and their own for creating more equitable decision-making and advocating for including this type of technology within LTC.
Authority
2/2Anchor 2: Explicitly documents peer-review editorial handling with named editors and peer reviewers in Frontiers in Robotics and AI.
Edited by: Leimin Tian , Monash University, Australia Reviewed by: Sonia Adelé , Université Gustave Eiffel, France Janika Leoste , Tallinn University, Estonia
Currency
—computed: no publish/modified date found on the page (never guessed)