Contrasting perceptions of health professionals and older people in Australia: what constitutes elder abuse?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceptions of family carers, older people and health professionals in Australia about what constitutes elder abuse. METHODS: The Caregiving Scenario Questionnaire (CSQ) was disseminated to health professionals from two metropolitan hospitals, older volunteers and carers of older people with dementia recruited for other studies. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty health professionals, 361 older people and 89 carers returned the surveys. χ(2) analyses indicated that significantly more health professionals than older people identified locking someone in the house alone all day (χ(2) (2) = 10.20, p = 0.006, Cramer's V = 0.14), restraining someone in a chair (χ(2) (2) = 19.984, p = 0.0005, Cramer's V = 0.19) and hiding medication in food (χ(2) (2) = 8.72, p = 0.013, Cramer's V = 0.13) as abusive. There were no significant differences between healthy volunteer older people and carers in their perceptions of elder abuse. A significant minority (40.8%) of health professionals and over 50% of carers did not identify locking the care recipient alone in the house all day as abusive. CONCLUSION: In Australia, there is limited consensus between older people, carers and health professionals regarding what constitutes elder abuse. Health professionals were more likely to identify abusive and potentially abusive strategies correctly than carers or healthy older people, but nonetheless between one quarter and two-fifths [correction made here after initial online publication] of health professionals did not identify the abusive strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it