MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1923082232 · doi:10.1300/j083v46n03_08

Consumer Fraud and the Elderly

2006· article· en· W1923082232 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carole Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Social Work · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abuseBusinessFinancial fraudCriminologyPsychologyMedicineSuicide preventionAccountingEnvironmental healthPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial abuse is the most common type of elder abuse. Consumer fraud, a form of financial abuse perpetrated by criminals who do not know the victim, is not well studied. Seniors represent a disproportionate percentage of the victims of consumer fraud. This article reviews the data on the prevalence of consumer fraud (primarily telemarketing scams) in Canada. It examines the reasons why Canadian seniors are targets of fraud. It also describes many unique initiatives developed at the local, provincial and national level in Canada to educate seniors and those who care for them about the types of scams and the risks of fraud.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gerontological Social WorkSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207