As the project is progressing along, we are adding 4 new public documents to our website. Since we aim to release public deliverables as quickly as possible, newly added documents may not have passed through external expert review. See our public documents page which deliverables have, and which ones haven’t passed this review procedure.
In this round, we have added the following four documents:
- D4.7: Behaviour change detection analysis prototype
- D5.4: Design of computational model based on theoretical and abstract model
- D5.5: Methods for evaluation the Dialogue and Argumentation Framework
- D6.5: Final prototype description and evaluations of the virtual coaches platform (includes software documentation)
Happy reading! And please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.
Many practical an uneasy questions are dealing with the degree of freedom let to the coached person, full consent understanding, sustainability of benchmarking personal emotions data and profiling emotional dialogue
How the Council of Coaches is addressing these issues in a practical way and avoiding bias would be relevant topics to be discussed especially when the project is targeting old persons either for prevention or treatment which need different models
Gerard Cornet
Gerontolgist , involved in the Gerontology cursus diploma Charles Foix Hospital Paris Sorbonne University
Email during the confinement : cornet_grard@orange.fr
Reply
Dear Gerard,
The concept of virtual coaching with multiple virtual coaches is very new, so we’re really only at a stage where we want to test the proof of concept. In that sense, from a content point of view we’re largely avoiding too complicated (emotional or disease related) issues. If you want to know more about how we perform our proof-of-concept evaluation, we have recently released the evaluation protocol on our website (https://council-of-coaches.eu/results/public-documents/d7-6-demonstration-protocol-ethical-approval/) and as a JMIR Research Protocols publication (https://www.researchprotocols.org/2020/4/e16641/).
Best,
Harm