MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986351201 · doi:10.1300/j084v15n03_09

An Exploratory Study of Responses to Elder Abuse in Faith Communities

2003· article· en· W1986351201 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Podnieks, Sue Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abuseFaithIntervention (counseling)ConfidentialityExploratory researchMedicinePsychologySuicide preventionPoison controlGerontologyNursingMedical emergencySociologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This study, conducted by Ryerson University, The Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Older Women's Network, and the Centre for Applied Research (Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto) examines faith leaders' perceptions of elder abuse, the actions taken by them in response to suspected or disclosed situations of elder abuse, and their knowledge and understanding of resources and services available for elder abuse intervention. Survey data was collected using an instrument that contained both open and closed-ended questions. The results of the study revealed that two-thirds of the clergy interviewed knew of, or suspected elder mistreatment among their parishioners. Faith leaders identified lack of education about elder mistreatment, lack of knowledge and/or skill in intervention techniques and confidentiality issues as barriers to responding effectively to the abuse of elders.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Elder Abuse & NeglectSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207