MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994554767 · doi:10.1080/08946566.2011.646512

Institutional Abuse of Older Adults: What We Know, What We Need to Know

2012· review· en· W1994554767 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abusePsychologyNeed to knowMedicineSuicide preventionGerontologyPoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Canadian policies support "aging in place," there still will be a number of older adults who will require institutional care in the future. Most research on elder abuse, however, has focused on domestic abuse and has paid less attention to institutional abuse. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively review current research to identify gaps in knowledge and methodological issues in the study of institutional abuse. Overall, 49 studies in English and 20 studies in French were reviewed, and 11 key-informant interviews were conducted with methodological experts. Methodological challenges are addressed in light of the review and interviews.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.301 · 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