MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1624000368 · doi:10.1080/08946566.2013.780956

What Is “Elder Abuse”? Voices From the Margin: The Views of Underrepresented Canadian Older Adults

2013· article· en· W1624000368 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElder abuseNeglectPsychological abuseSexual abusePhysical abuseImmigrationFocus groupPsychologyPerceptionSuicide preventionClinical psychologyPoison controlMedicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceMedical emergencySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We know relatively little about the definitions and perceptions of elder abuse held by marginalized groups of older adults in Canada. The current study used focus group methodology to explore perceptions of elder abuse among marginalized groups such as Aboriginal persons, immigrants, refugees, and lesbians. We found both similarities and differences in perceptions of elder abuse across groups. Groups identified traditional forms of elder abuse (i.e., physical, sexual, psychological/emotional, financial abuse, and neglect) as well as less frequently identified types of abuse such as disrespect and government or systemic abuse. Groups also discussed issues related to immigrant sponsorship arrangements and abuse in nursing homes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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